Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Oh Lord, someone please stop me from speculating… because now I can't get it out of my head that it might have been *Beckington* who married Eleanor and Edward, with Stillington either present as a witness or otherwise aware of the marriage through his association (friendship?) with the older Bishop.

Hear me out before you dismiss the theory outright!!! ;)

Beckington was evidently a well-respected Bishop, a philanthropist and great builder, who'd been loyal in service to Henry VI but didn't appear to be a 'Lancastrian' in any active sense. (Indeed, he'd been the protégé of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and his main loyalty seems to have been to his patron Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury.) By the time Edward became King, Beckington had long been busily pottering about with his building schemes, scholarly interests and local diocese matters, retired fom national politics.

From the looks of it, he was an honourable and sincere man, known for his piety; not involved in political intrigue, at least in his later years. Documentation in his name, combined with Stillington's testimony, would probably have been enough to convince the Three Estates.

And Beckington was certainly a 'safe' choice for a secret marriage: he was old and infirm, likely to die soon (which he did), and wasn't in the habit of travelling outside the diocese of Bath and Wells. Funny, too, if you think about the chronology: EW and Edward married in secret in May 1464; the marriage was made public (if I remember correctly) at the end of September 1464. Beckington died in January 1465. What if Beckington was already too far gone by September to speak out, Eleanor herself silenced one way or another, and with Stillington in Edward's pocket, it was finally safe to declare EW his wife…?

As for connections: the diocese of Bath and Wells was quite conveniently situated, being close to both Goodrich Castle of the Talbots, and Sudeley Castle of the Botelers.

More importantly, Beckington was Henry VI's secretary back in the day, and he and Lord Sudeley were in the same circle in the late 1430s/early 1440s - they definitely knew each other, and for a fact they shared at least one close friend and associate, Lord Cromwell. Beckington had retired from national politics by the 1450s but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have associated with the Boteler family, especially as he and Sudeley had a hobby in common: both were enthusiastic builders.

Back in the 1440s Beckington was also in the same royal circles with Thomas Bourchier, later Archbishop of Canterbury - who was, of course, brother of Eleanor Bourchier, Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law...

Isn't it at least possible Beckington, a pious and esteemed old bishop with all these connections, was someone Eleanor might have known and trusted?

I have absolutely no reason to believe any of this, mind you. I have no idea how Beckington would have been connected to the marriage. I have no idea if Edward and Eleanor even knew Beckington or ever went anywhere near his diocese during that time. I just have a hunch that this Thomas Beckington fellow is worth investigating more closely - even if he's not connected to the pre-contract, per se. Stillington wasn't just his successor as the Bishop of Bath and Wells; they were connected before, and it seems to me Beckington might even have been something of a mentor and/or patron to him in the 1440s. (Quoting from Beckington's DNB bio: 'He gathered around him a group of distinguished Oxford scholars, several of them Wykehamists, who served in his administration and were members of the Wells chapter. Among them were Thomas Chaundler, Robert Stillington, Thomas Gascoigne, and Gilbert Kymer.' source: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/1908)

Indeed, it might even explain Stillington's later scruples: he might have been close and loyal to Beckington and felt a pang of guilt about helping, in self-interest, to hide the marriage the former had officiated in good faith.

Now, a question: where exactly was the manor house left to Eleanor by her late husband, and did she live there as a widow?

I have read it and a fourth person is a very unnecessary complication at a *secret* ceremony.

However, the facts work in two ways:
1) Beckington was the priest and only other person - who told Stillington before he died.
2) Stillington was the priest and Beckington is irrelevant.

Hancock states that Lady Eleanor and Stillington were vaguely related, to which there are another two options:
1) Hancock is wrong.
2) He is right so Hilary and I will find out exactly how.

I think we can reject the first option now as we have one connection, taken from Hancock's own footnotes. There is probably a much simpler connection.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:13 PM
Subject: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells



Oh Lord, someone please stop me from speculating. because now I can't get it out of my head that it might have been *Beckington* who married Eleanor and Edward, with Stillington either present as a witness or otherwise aware of the marriage through his association (friendship?) with the older Bishop.

Hear me out before you dismiss the theory outright!!! ;)

Beckington was evidently a well-respected Bishop, a philanthropist and great builder, who'd been loyal in service to Henry VI but didn't appear to be a 'Lancastrian' in any active sense. (Indeed, he'd been the protégé of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and his main loyalty seems to have been to his patron Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury.) By the time Edward became King, Beckington had long been busily pottering about with his building schemes, scholarly interests and local diocese matters, retired fom national politics.

From the looks of it, he was an honourable and sincere man, known for his piety; not involved in political intrigue, at least in his later years. Documentation in his name, combined with Stillington's testimony, would probably have been enough to convince the Three Estates.

And Beckington was certainly a 'safe' choice for a secret marriage: he was old and infirm, likely to die soon (which he did), and wasn't in the habit of travelling outside the diocese of Bath and Wells. Funny, too, if you think about the chronology: EW and Edward married in secret in May 1464; the marriage was made public (if I remember correctly) at the end of September 1464. Beckington died in January 1465. What if Beckington was already too far gone by September to speak out, Eleanor herself silenced one way or another, and with Stillington in Edward's pocket, it was finally safe to declare EW his wife.?

As for connections: the diocese of Bath and Wells was quite conveniently situated, being close to both Goodrich Castle of the Talbots, and Sudeley Castle of the Botelers.

More importantly, Beckington was Henry VI's secretary back in the day, and he and Lord Sudeley were in the same circle in the late 1430s/early 1440s - they definitely knew each other, and for a fact they shared at least one close friend and associate, Lord Cromwell. Beckington had retired from national politics by the 1450s but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have associated with the Boteler family, especially as he and Sudeley had a hobby in common: both were enthusiastic builders.

Back in the 1440s Beckington was also in the same royal circles with Thomas Bourchier, later Archbishop of Canterbury - who was, of course, brother of Eleanor Bourchier, Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law...

Isn't it at least possible Beckington, a pious and esteemed old bishop with all these connections, was someone Eleanor might have known and trusted?

I have absolutely no reason to believe any of this, mind you. I have no idea how Beckington would have been connected to the marriage. I have no idea if Edward and Eleanor even knew Beckington or ever went anywhere near his diocese during that time. I just have a hunch that this Thomas Beckington fellow is worth investigating more closely - even if he's not connected to the pre-contract, per se. Stillington wasn't just his successor as the Bishop of Bath and Wells; they were connected before, and it seems to me Beckington might even have been something of a mentor and/or patron to him in the 1440s. (Quoting from Beckington's DNB bio: 'He gathered around him a group of distinguished Oxford scholars, several of them Wykehamists, who served in his administration and were members of the Wells chapter. Among them were Thomas Chaundler, Robert Stillington, Thomas Gascoigne, and Gilbert Kymer.' source: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/1908)

Indeed, it might even explain Stillington's later scruples: he might have been close and loyal to Beckington and felt a pang of guilt about helping, in self-interest, to hide the marriage the former had officiated in good faith.

Now, a question: where exactly was the manor house left to Eleanor by her late husband, and did she live there as a widow?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I have read it and a fourth person is a very unnecessary complication at a *secret* ceremony.
>
> However, the facts work in two ways:
> 1) Beckington was the priest and only other person - who told Stillington before he died.
> 2) Stillington was the priest and Beckington is irrelevant.
>
> Hancock states that Lady Eleanor and Stillington were vaguely related, to which there are another two options:
> 1) Hancock is wrong.
> 2) He is right so Hilary and I will find out exactly how.
>
> I think we can reject the first option now as we have one connection, taken from Hancock's own footnotes. There is probably a much simpler connection.
>

I understand, but even if Eleanor and Stillington were indeed related, would it automatically render all other possible connections meaningless...? I can't see how it's either/or.

The whole Beckington thing is mere fanciful speculation, of course, but *if* it were true, I don't see how he would be irrelevant - having, for instance, access to Beckington's own written documentation would surely back up Stillington's own testimony. (And something of its kind would certainly be a handy thing to give him a hold over Edward. There are ways to silence a Bishop who knows too much, but it's not wise if there are incriminating papers lying about somewhere...)

And as for the question of witnesses: I don't think anyone is arguing that a marriage wouldn't have been valid without a witness - but having a witness would certainly make it more provable in a court of law. In an era teeming with marriage litigation, it seems strange to me that a woman of Eleanor's stature would consent to marry anyone without any witnesses. Not impossible, of course - but strange and even rather dim-witted.

Speaking of secret marriages, I wonder where Sir James Mackintosh, writing in his 'History of England' in the early 19th century, got this idea about the wedding of Edward and EW:

'The bride and bridegroom, a priest, a chanter, two gentlemen, and the duchess of Bedford, were the only persons present at the solemnity.'

It seems so strangely specific!

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of secret marriages, I wonder where Sir James Mackintosh, writing in his 'History of England' in the early 19th century, got this idea about the wedding of Edward and EW:
>
> 'The bride and bridegroom, a priest, a chanter, two gentlemen, and the duchess of Bedford, were the only persons present at the solemnity.'
>
> It seems so strangely specific!
>

Sorry for going on about this, but strangely, Thomas Carte, writing in his 'A General History of England' in 1750, says:

'When the resolution was taken, Edward came from Stony Stratford, with a very few attendants, early in the morning, on May 1, to Grafton: and was there married by a priest: no body else being present, but the boy who served at masse, the dutchess of Bedford, and two of her gentlewomen.'

(I hope I'm not the only one who's intrigued by these tidbits!!)

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for going on about this, but strangely, Thomas Carte, writing in his 'A General History of England' in 1750, says:
>

Correction: 1738, apparently. The edition I found on Google Books was from 1750.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells


> Speaking of secret marriages, I wonder where Sir James Mackintosh, writing
> in his 'History of England' in the early 19th century, got this idea about
> the wedding of Edward and EW:

Hmm. I wonder if this is the Victorian history I read all those years ago.
If you have access to the section on Richard, have a look and see if it says
that Ann encouraged him to accept the throne, and that at her funeral he
walked through the streets with her coffin and wept openly.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> Hmm. I wonder if this is the Victorian history I read all those years ago.
> If you have access to the section on Richard, have a look and see if it says
> that Ann encouraged him to accept the throne, and that at her funeral he
> walked through the streets with her coffin and wept openly.
>

You can check for yourself at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ofdMAAAAMAAJ

But I don't think it is - Mackintosh is surprisingly even-handed in some ways and doesn't like to make unsubstantiated claims (doesn't believe that Richard had anything to do with killing Henry VI, for instance) but in his account of Richard's reign and 'usurpation', he does seem to take More as gospel.

I know St. Cuthbert, the Saint of the North, was Richard's chosen saint, but I don't know how Richard might have acknowledged the saint's day, 20th March. Would he have celebrated it in any particular way? Or might it simply have meant a few extra prayers at the usual daily devotions? Or nothing at all?

Sandra

I wonder if EB was naive and trusting....She was very religious...maybe she took people at face value and believed what they said. Maybe she had never became cynical....maybe she had never had the need to well up until then. Also....how good was Edward at flattery and honeyed words...maybe he even meant what he said and promised at the time...a lot of maybes...too bad we are never going to know....damn and blarst!...eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>, it seems strange to me that a woman of Eleanor's stature would consent to marry anyone without any witnesses. Not impossible, of course - but strange and even rather dim-witted.
>

Or giddily in love/lust!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells



I wonder if EB was naive and trusting....She was very religious...maybe she took people at face value and believed what they said. Maybe she had never became cynical....maybe she had never had the need to well up until then. Also....how good was Edward at flattery and honeyed words...maybe he even meant what he said and promised at the time...a lot of maybes...too bad we are never going to know....damn and blarst!...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@...<mailto:no_reply@...>> wrote:
>
>, it seems strange to me that a woman of Eleanor's stature would consent to marry anyone without any witnesses. Not impossible, of course - but strange and even rather dim-witted.
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells


> But I don't think it is - Mackintosh is surprisingly even-handed in some
> ways and doesn't like to make unsubstantiated claims (doesn't believe that
> Richard had anything to do with killing Henry VI, for instance) but in his
> account of Richard's reign and 'usurpation', he does seem to take More as
> gospel.

Yeah, you're right, that's not it - blast. The provision of unexpected (and
unexplained) details regarding Edward's marriages had given me hope it was
the same book, but it's definitely not. It doesn't even specifically
mention Ann's death.

Thinking about professional connections a bit further, another interesting tidbit is that Beckington seems also to have been associated with Rotherham. Beckington had donated money towards the building of Lincoln College, Oxford, and much later on:

'Thomas de Rotherham, Bishop of London (sic), the second founder of Lincoln College, from motives of gratitude to Beckington, instituted and endowed a fellowship there, for persons born in the diocese of Wells, investing it with all collegiate privileges, except eligibility to the rectorship and sub-rectorship.'
(source: http://books.google.fi/books?id=u8llOoTc9NkC)

Whatever those 'motives of gratitudes' were, and whatever the nature of their connection, I find it interesting that two such significant names - Stillington and Rotherham - may have been closely associated with Beckington.

It's interesting to ponder how much collective knowledge a network of priests would have had about everybody's business. (Not the Lady Eleanor business, specifically - but practically *everybody's* business.) How much did they know, how much of that information did they share with each other, and to what extent did they trade on their secret knowledge for advancement?

Pamela Bain wrote:

"Or giddily in love/lust!"

And if one can't trust the word of your king...
Doug

pansydobersby wrote:

//snip//
"It's interesting to ponder how much collective knowledge a network of
priests would have had about everybody's business. (Not the Lady Eleanor
business, specifically - but practically *everybody's* business.) How much
did they know, how much of that information did they share with each other,
and to what extent did they trade on their secret knowledge for
advancement?"

Doug here:
Perhaps that's a reason so many "historians" have accepted the Chroniclers
and More? Simple tales with a moral added? The inter-relationshps that have
been shown here may or may not have had an impact on what happened, but they
would definitely muddy the waters. Then there's the toes that might have
been stepped on if one dug around too much.
"Talbots and Butlers, and Staffords, oh my!"
(apologies to Arlen and Harburg!)
Doug

Add this to what the lawyers knew ......



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 


pansydobersby wrote:

//snip//
"It's interesting to ponder how much collective knowledge a network of
priests would have had about everybody's business. (Not the Lady Eleanor
business, specifically - but practically *everybody's* business.) How much
did they know, how much of that information did they share with each other,
and to what extent did they trade on their secret knowledge for
advancement?"

Doug here:
Perhaps that's a reason so many "historians" have accepted the Chroniclers
and More? Simple tales with a moral added? The inter-relationshps that have
been shown here may or may not have had an impact on what happened, but they
would definitely muddy the waters. Then there's the toes that might have
been stepped on if one dug around too much.
"Talbots and Butlers, and Staffords, oh my!"
(apologies to Arlen and Harburg!)
Doug

Pammy..exactly. Perhaps she had been *happily* married and missed the comfort of a loving relationship. Love can make fools of us all, at one time or another. Look at the many women who get duped, and over the internet too, by men who send them a photo! and they then proceed to send them their life savings...you think that is wrong with them?? I used to think these pre-marital agreements so much in vogue now with the rich and famous were awful...but who can say, its probably a very wise move. Anyway Im off on a tangent...but hopefully you will understand what Im trying to say....basically poor Eleanor..imagine what she must have felt like...used and dumped. Probably another reason she kept the secret...she must have felt, maybe, very foolish...eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Or giddily in love/lust!
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:16 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>
> I wonder if EB was naive and trusting....She was very religious...maybe she took people at face value and believed what they said. Maybe she had never became cynical....maybe she had never had the need to well up until then. Also....how good was Edward at flattery and honeyed words...maybe he even meant what he said and promised at the time...a lot of maybes...too bad we are never going to know....damn and blarst!...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@<mailto:no_reply@>> wrote:
> >
> >, it seems strange to me that a woman of Eleanor's stature would consent to marry anyone without any witnesses. Not impossible, of course - but strange and even rather dim-witted.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Well not that particular king...who apparently kept his brain in his pants...eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> "Or giddily in love/lust!"
>
> And if one can't trust the word of your king...
> Doug
>

And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.

'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...

I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?

Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?


(SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)

Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>
> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>
> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>
> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>
>
> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>

By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> >
> > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> >
> > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> >
> > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> >
> >
> > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> >
>

Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> >
> > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > >
> > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > >
> > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > >
> > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > >
> > >
> > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > >
> >
>

That would have made Stanley's son, Anne Neville's cousin.....they must have met somewhere along the line...and yes...you could see that this would make it extremely difficult for Richard to execute him casting aside that Richard was probably never going to execute a hostage under those circumstances...Im glad he didnt. It was rather a hateful/coldblooded thing to do..eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > >
> > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > >
> > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > >
> > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes ma'am, apparently he had a roving eye, and other parts which followed!!!!!

On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Well not that particular king...who apparently kept his brain in his pants...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> "Or giddily in love/lust!"
>
> And if one can't trust the word of your king...
> Doug
>

I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>
> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>
> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>
> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>
>
> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>

I, the dunderhead, gain enlightenment from those of you who know so much, ask questions, make speculations, and very often find the correct answer! Keep it up, PLEASE!

On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:24 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>
> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>
> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>
> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>
>
> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>

And just to throw another spanner in (I love it) - remember the guy who left his wife and became a monk, Sir John Ingleby, Stillington's niece's father-in-law? Well he became the royal family's confessor at Sheen which was why he was made executor to EW's will later on. Hey - did Edward confess to him and he told Stillington? If he did he kept his head down and outlived them all and became H7's ambassador to the Pope. Speculation, speculation......



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:15
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 

And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.

'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...

I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?

Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?

(SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)

I just read this morning that Iceland now has a data base so people won't fall in love with, canoodling, or marry a closely related relative. It sounds like this is EXACTLY what the nobility did then, and probably still do. This is swimming in a gene pool without a lifeguard!!!!

On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:44 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> >
> > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> >
> > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> >
> > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> >
> >
> > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> >
>

Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> >
> > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> >
> > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> >
> > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> >
> >
> > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

A very sticky plot thickens and stickiers even more sticky...eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And just to throw another spanner in (I love it) - remember the guy who left his wife and became a monk, Sir John Ingleby, Stillington's niece's father-in-law? Well he became the royal family's confessor at Sheen which was why he was made executor to EW's will later on. Hey - did Edward confess to him and he told Stillington? If he did he kept his head down and outlived them all and became H7's ambassador to the Pope. Speculation, speculation......
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:15
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
>
> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>
> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>
> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>
> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>
> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>
>
>
>
>
>

And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > >
> > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > >
> > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > >
> > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > >
> > >
> > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells


> That would have made Stanley's son, Anne Neville's cousin.....they must
> have met somewhere along the line...and yes...you could see that this
> would make it extremely difficult for Richard to execute him casting aside
> that Richard was probably never going to execute a hostage under those
> circumstances...Im glad he didnt. It was rather a hateful/coldblooded
> thing to do..eileen

Yes. In 1985 there ws this really strange made-for-TV film called A Bus to
Bosworth, about a group of Welsh schoolchidren travelling to Bosworth for
the 500th anniversary of the battle. It was very dreamlike - the time kept
slipping between the 20th and 15th centuries, so that for example the bus
would drive over a bridge and once it had passed you'd see a Mediaeval boat
sail under it.

The children were accompanied by two teachers - a woman who was very
pro-Henry and believed all the Tudor propaganda about Richard, and a man who
kept saying "But, but, some people now believe..." but wasn't really allowed
to speak. While they were touring the battlefield the children were told
the story about Lord Strange being taken hostage, and then right at the end
one of the children came up to the male teacher and asked "And did Richard
kill Lord Stanley's son?" The teacher replied "Good girl: no, he did not."
This somehow seemed to encapsulate all that needed to be said.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells


> Well not that particular king...who apparently kept his brain in his
> pants...eileen

As I once heard Owen Dudley Edwards said of Rabbie Burns (and I think he was
quoting what somebody else had said about Charles II!) "He was, in a very
*real* sense, the father of his country...."

Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit.  Of course I have some common sense.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 
And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > >
> > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > >
> > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > >
> > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > >
> > >
> > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Wonder if the film or video is still around somewhere - sounds like
something worth resurrecting!

Link to photo of bus used

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quicksilver_coaches/5471006724/

And a couple of the internet references turn up pages in Welsh.

A J


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:01 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
> and Wells
>
> > That would have made Stanley's son, Anne Neville's cousin.....they must
> > have met somewhere along the line...and yes...you could see that this
> > would make it extremely difficult for Richard to execute him casting
> aside
> > that Richard was probably never going to execute a hostage under those
> > circumstances...Im glad he didnt. It was rather a hateful/coldblooded
> > thing to do..eileen
>
> Yes. In 1985 there ws this really strange made-for-TV film called A Bus to
> Bosworth, about a group of Welsh schoolchidren travelling to Bosworth for
> the 500th anniversary of the battle. It was very dreamlike - the time kept
> slipping between the 20th and 15th centuries, so that for example the bus
> would drive over a bridge and once it had passed you'd see a Mediaeval
> boat
> sail under it.
>
> The children were accompanied by two teachers - a woman who was very
> pro-Henry and believed all the Tudor propaganda about Richard, and a man
> who
> kept saying "But, but, some people now believe..." but wasn't really
> allowed
> to speak. While they were touring the battlefield the children were told
> the story about Lord Strange being taken hostage, and then right at the
> end
> one of the children came up to the male teacher and asked "And did Richard
> kill Lord Stanley's son?" The teacher replied "Good girl: no, he did not."
> This somehow seemed to encapsulate all that needed to be said.
>
>
>

Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit.  Of course I have some common sense.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
> And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
> All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > >
> > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > >
> > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > >
> > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is very unfair. It also makes me wonder why these so called "historians" have not unearthed some of the research that members of this forum have done. For instance the information unearthed over the last few days has been incredible. Also they never speculate, but then they have to have evidence to support what they say!!! You are right Eileen, you couldn't make it up

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit.  Of course I have some common sense.
> >  
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >  
> > And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
> > All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say! 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells


> Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful
> educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense
> department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual
> world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted
> her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her
> sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra
> mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly
> you couldnt make it up....eileen

Mind you, he *had* executed her other son Gray, and her brother - but people
seem to have accepted death as a natural consequence of a failed rebellion.
To advise Dorset to come home, she must have trusted Richard not to execute
somebody who sued for pardon and then behaved themselves, so she must have
believed he was honest and not needlessly vindictive. And as with the poems
about his courage written by his enemies, praise and trust from somebody who
didn't like him is very valuable because it's almost certainly sincere.

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells


> Wonder if the film or video is still around somewhere - sounds like
> something worth resurrecting!

I'm pretty sure the Society had a copy at the time.

Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

>
> Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > >
> > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > >
> > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > >
> > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

This forum should put everything in one document and publish it. Give Hicks run for his money:)
It would also help dumbos like me to keep things in order ........ I am completely confused by Stillington affair........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> It is very unfair. It also makes me wonder why these so called "historians" have not unearthed some of the research that members of this forum have done. For instance the information unearthed over the last few days has been incredible. Also they never speculate, but then they have to have evidence to support what they say!!! You are right Eileen, you couldn't make it up
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit. Of course I have some common sense.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
> > > All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say!Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

You and me and, I suspect others!

On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



This forum should put everything in one document and publish it. Give Hicks run for his money:)
It would also help dumbos like me to keep things in order ........ I am completely confused by Stillington affair........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>> wrote:

> It is very unfair. It also makes me wonder why these so called "historians" have not unearthed some of the research that members of this forum have done. For instance the information unearthed over the last few days has been incredible. Also they never speculate, but then they have to have evidence to support what they say!!! You are right Eileen, you couldn't make it up
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit. Of course I have some common sense.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
> > > All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say!ý
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
> > > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

@Pam, haha! I am serious. I am lost.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> You and me and, I suspect others!
>
> On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> This forum should put everything in one document and publish it. Give Hicks run for his money:)
> It would also help dumbos like me to keep things in order ........ I am completely confused by Stillington affair........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>> wrote:
>
>> It is very unfair. It also makes me wonder why these so called "historians" have not unearthed some of the research that members of this forum have done. For instance the information unearthed over the last few days has been incredible. Also they never speculate, but then they have to have evidence to support what they say!!! You are right Eileen, you couldn't make it up
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit. Of course I have some common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
>>>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
>>>> All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say!Â
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles, Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am lost in prior or priory times!!!!!

On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:00 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



@Pam, haha! I am serious. I am lost.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> You and me and, I suspect others!
>
> On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com><mailto:bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> This forum should put everything in one document and publish it. Give Hicks run for his money:)
> It would also help dumbos like me to keep things in order ........ I am completely confused by Stillington affair........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com><mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com>>> wrote:
>
>> It is very unfair. It also makes me wonder why these so called "historians" have not unearthed some of the research that members of this forum have done. For instance the information unearthed over the last few days has been incredible. Also they never speculate, but then they have to have evidence to support what they say!!! You are right Eileen, you couldn't make it up
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes of course...some historians, despite having the most wonderful educations and abundance of brains seems lacking in the old common sense department...Its almost as if they have never actually lived in the actual world. I recall reading...where?...that EW left sanctuary and submitted her daughters to Richard's care, knowing that he was responsible for her sons death because she was a 'realist'! Of course, she even went the extra mile by writing to Dorset and telling him to return to England...Honestly you couldnt make it up....eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well I'm not a mother either but I still know it's bullshit. Of course I have some common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 19:38
>>>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that is what tradionalists and some historians dont want us to do...historians who would have us believe, as an example, that EW knowing full well that Richard had had her two youngest sons murdered, emerged from sanctuary and happily let her older daughters stay at Richard's court and party...also writing to her another son to come on back to England...Richard has killed your small brothers but hey, he has said he wont do it again and you can trust him...
>>>> All I can say is that historians who trot this old garbage out have never been mothers...Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely agree with you and Eileen, speculate, dig and ask as many questions as we can. So Pansy speculate as much as you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Eileen and I'm as bad as anyone. As long as we don't publish as truth without facts to back it up (like Hicks) then I see no harm whatsoever. Otherwise things will stand still. And we have a lot more resources now from the web than any other generation ever had. Imagine trying to dig some of this stuff out by going from record office to record office. Keep speculating I say!ý
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 17:24
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ý
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's not.

Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name Yer Baby" book.

I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?

~Weds


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles, Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am lost in prior or priory times!!!!!

Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her, don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
Loyaulte me Lie.
Christine

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's not.
>
> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name Yer Baby" book.
>
> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles, Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
>

And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hastings *was* married to Catesby in a private (not sekrit) ceremony. Hastings died because Harry Buckingham was jellus and wanted Catesby all to himself. He told Dickon that Hastings was plotting to kill Buckingham and The Blessed Protector of England, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, no record exists as to Catesby's reaction to the loss of his one true luv.

~Wedz.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

Married!
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells



And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells




Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Yes didn't it get annulled or something - sorry stupid question! Did the gedcom 'translate' OK?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:38
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Married!
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

You've read Dening haven't you, Eileen ( I know some laugh at us )? You remember when asked who did it Richard said 'the Church'. Well guess where Morton was hovering from 1475/78 - canon of Wells Cathedral. He became Bishop of Ely in 1478. Tis but one branch of speculation.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have indeed read Denning...twice...guilty m'lud. I feel this is a handy part of the proceedings to remind those that took the mick that according to Denning Richard said that he was attacked from the back and died very quickly....hmmmmm...anyway...yes...apparently the *church* was behind everything, pulling strings, stabbing backs. Morton..I would put nothing beyond him...even the death of EoM...which is another branch of speculation. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You've read Dening haven't you, Eileen ( I know some laugh at us )? You remember when asked who did it Richard said 'the Church'. Well guess where Morton was hovering from 1475/78 - canon of Wells Cathedral. He became Bishop of Ely in 1478. Tis but one branch of speculation.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!


 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Weds...I recall reading somewhere...where?..that Catesby was extremely hacked off by the sudden demize of his luv...so peeved was he...he encouraged Bucks to rebal against Richard knowing full well he didnt have the bravado or muscel necessary and when he hid Catesby let them know where he was hid...the rest is history. Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Hastings *was* married to Catesby in a private (not sekrit) ceremony. Hastings died because Harry Buckingham was jellus and wanted Catesby all to himself. He told Dickon that Hastings was plotting to kill Buckingham and The Blessed Protector of England, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, no record exists as to Catesby's reaction to the loss of his one true luv.
>
> ~Wedz.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>

My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
>
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I haven't looked yet as I have a project to finish today.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells



Yes didn't it get annulled or something - sorry stupid question! Did the gedcom 'translate' OK?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:38
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells




Married!
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No worries. Just let me know if it doesn't work. Had this vision of you choking under it.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:17
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

I haven't looked yet as I have a project to finish today.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Yes didn't it get annulled or something - sorry stupid question! Did the gedcom 'translate' OK?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:38
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Married!
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
>
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wonderful news!

On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>" <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>> wrote:




Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her, don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
Loyaulte me Lie.
Christine

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's not.
>
> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name Yer Baby" book.
>
> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles, Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
>

We have to prioritise....how else will we be able to set the records straight about our King? :0)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Guilty as charged.....

On Apr 21, 2013, at 12:26 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells




My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
>
>
> ý
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
> ý
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells


> Wonderful news!
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>"
> <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> Loyaulte me Lie.
> Christine
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>
>> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
>> not.
>>
>> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
>> Yer Baby" book.
>>
>> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
>> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
>> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
>> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
>> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
>> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> Bath and Wells
>
>
> > Wonderful news!
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>"
> > <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> >> not.
> >>
> >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> >> Yer Baby" book.
> >>
> >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Could it have been dissolved so that she could marry Edmund Tudor/Beaufort? She was a heiress and H6 might have wanted his "half brother" to marry a rich heiress.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

WHAT?   Yes I know I'm shouting but I am totally shocked.  I assume she died?  Oh how different history could have been ...



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 1:35
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 
Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com> wrote:

>
> Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > >
> > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > >
> > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > >
> > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

From the Yorkshire Branch website.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells



Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> Bath and Wells
>
>
> > Wonderful news!
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>"
> > <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> >> not.
> >>
> >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> >> Yer Baby" book.
> >>
> >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I think it must be as I am allergic to dusting and general housework too. Some members of my branch have also admitted to not being too keen on housework. So maybe it is one of the criteria for being a Ricardian. A lecturer I had at college, many years ago, made me feel a lot better about it when she said " if your skirting boards are clean then you are not using your brain". You must agree we are certainly using our brains on this forum.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Housework? Ugh. So it is a Ricardian thing? Glad to have a credible excuse
at last. The cat isn't an elderly Siamese, by any chance? =^..^=
Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:39 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells

So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room.

Thanks.....eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> From the Yorkshire Branch website.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>
> Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > > Wonderful news!
> > >
> > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > >> not.
> > >>
> > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > >>
> > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > >>
> > >> ~Weds
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hey Wednesday,
 
You really should write  a novel, it would outsell P Gregory.
 
 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 
Hastings *was* married to Catesby in a private (not sekrit) ceremony. Hastings died because Harry Buckingham was jellus and wanted Catesby all to himself. He told Dickon that Hastings was plotting to kill Buckingham and The Blessed Protector of England, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, no record exists as to Catesby's reaction to the loss of his one true luv.

~Wedz.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)

I found it on Amazon.

On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> Bath and Wells
>
>
> > Wonderful news!
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>"
> > <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> >> not.
> >>
> >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> >> Yer Baby" book.
> >>
> >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Housework interferes with my reading I'm afraid  ....



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 19:41
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 
I think it must be as I am allergic to dusting and general housework too. Some members of my branch have also admitted to not being too keen on housework. So maybe it is one of the criteria for being a Ricardian. A lecturer I had at college, many years ago, made me feel a lot better about it when she said " if your skirting boards are clean then you are not using your brain". You must agree we are certainly using our brains on this forum.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>  
>
> My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Pamela..I have already sent email to the Yorkshire branch....eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I found it on Amazon.
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > > Wonderful news!
> > >
> > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > >> not.
> > >>
> > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > >>
> > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > >>
> > >> ~Weds
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know.I know...its just so annoying...eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Housework interferes with my reading I'm afraid  ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 19:41
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
> I think it must be as I am allergic to dusting and general housework too. Some members of my branch have also admitted to not being too keen on housework. So maybe it is one of the criteria for being a Ricardian. A lecturer I had at college, many years ago, made me feel a lot better about it when she said " if your skirting boards are clean then you are not using your brain". You must agree we are certainly using our brains on this forum.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen

Carol responds:

Hastings's wife would also have been Richard's first cousin, which partly explains his generosity to her after Hastings's execution. He (Richard) was always good to the Nevilles.

Carol

Unless you have serious allegies, fussing too much about tidiness is usually
a sign of neurosis or of wanting to impress the neighbours. We have much
more important considerations to worry about.


From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells


Guilty as charged.....

On Apr 21, 2013, at 12:26 PM, "Hilary Jones"
<hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room.

________________________________
From: EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells




My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to
my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars
> (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to
> keep that under the bed!
>
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
> and Wells
>
>
> Â
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long
> search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to
> the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being
> dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very
> eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's
> > father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round
> > everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > Ã,Â
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married
> > to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point
> > > of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters.
> > > > It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill
> > > > Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended
> > > > family.
> > > > --- In
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was
> > > > > married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne
> > > > > Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it
> > > > > not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and
> > > > > > questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we
> > > > > > are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record
> > > > > > straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's
> > > > > > delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had
> > > > > > > become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course
> > > > > > > pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest
> > > > > > > sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > > > > > for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was
> > > > > > > doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained
> > > > > > > the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP.
> > > > > > > PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!

Carol responds:

Fortunately for Francis, he was Warwick's ward at the time and didn't have to live with his stepfather.

Carol

Well getting close - he's Oriental and a total nutter!



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 19:43
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Housework? Ugh. So it is a Ricardian thing? Glad to have a credible excuse
at last. The cat isn't an elderly Siamese, by any chance? =^..^=
Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:39 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells

So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room.

What I have found in my diggings so far is that the Stanleys don't seem to have as many connections as many of the other major families. It's interesting though that northerners married northerners, southerners married southerners, unless you were a hugely powerful family like the Nevilles or Beauchamps who spanned the country (and had lots of daughters to marry off). So Richard would always have an uphill battle in the south - I know that's been said before but he really did.
One could also say that the Percies had a superior claim to the Beauforts (barred anyway), descended as they were from Roger Mortimer's daughter Elizabeth and thus from Lionel of Clarence. I know this was through the female line, but the Yorkists used that to their own advantage. Or were the Percies also barred and I don't know? 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:42
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 

Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!

Carol responds:

Fortunately for Francis, he was Warwick's ward at the time and didn't have to live with his stepfather.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!

Carol responds:

I know. I think they were actually married but the marriage was annulled on the grounds that it hadn't been consummated. Too bad they didn't stay married--there would have been no Henry Tudor, only, presumably, a different earl of Lincoln. How much better life would have been for so many people if the Wars of the Roses had ended with Tewkesbury and the Tudor line (ignoring the childless Jasper) had ended with Edmund.

Carol

Hold on! MB was married to Suffolk at some point?!
Then what happened? How did he end up married to R's sis?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 21, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Yes didn't it get annulled or something - sorry stupid question! Did the gedcom 'translate' OK?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>
>
> Married!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
> And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Guilty:(

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Guilty as charged.....
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 12:26 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
>
>
> My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
>>> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>>>>
>>>> Ishita Bandyo
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hmm, I tried to do housework and fell way behind my emails and posts........

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 21, 2013, at 3:09 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> I know.I know...its just so annoying...eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Housework interferes with my reading I'm afraid ....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 19:41
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> >
> > Â
> > I think it must be as I am allergic to dusting and general housework too. Some members of my branch have also admitted to not being too keen on housework. So maybe it is one of the criteria for being a Ricardian. A lecturer I had at college, many years ago, made me feel a lot better about it when she said " if your skirting boards are clean then you are not using your brain". You must agree we are certainly using our brains on this forum.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says she as cat hairs float round the room.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to keep that under the bed!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very eventful life.....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round everywhere!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (76)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 8 New Files 5
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE

She died but after being married to Stanley for sometime.....

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 21, 2013, at 2:32 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> WHAT? Yes I know I'm shouting but I am totally shocked. I assume she died? Oh how different history could have been ...
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 1:35
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>
> Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters. It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended family.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it not? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's delight...eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course pally with the Talbots...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP. PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why did Mrs Lovell marry that viper? Was it another EdIV policy of satisfying the Stanley's?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 21, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Fortunately for Francis, he was Warwick's ward at the time and didn't have to live with his stepfather.
>
> Carol
>
>

Having resorted to Halsted for my potterings on Stillington the story of Stillington conducting the marriage alone and being urged to tell Richard by Eleanor's family seems to have come from Commines via Buck

'this contract was made in the hands of the bishop who said that afterwards he married them, no person being present but they twayne and he, the king charging him strictly not to reveal it'

It's Buck, according to Halsted, who states that Stillington was induced by the Lady Eleanor's family to inform the Duke of Gloucester of the King's marriage as 'the man most inward to the king' during his life.' He also implies that Cis had known for some time and urged Edward to return to Eleanor in her lifetime.

JAH doesn't quote this from Commines, though he does quote a bit where he says the bishop was alone when he conducted the marriage. Is it because it's pure Buck interpretation?

I do apologise if this has been asked before. I am still digging for the elusive straightforward connection. H

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Lord, someone please stop me from speculating… because now I can't get it out of my head that it might have been *Beckington* who married Eleanor and Edward, with Stillington either present as a witness or otherwise aware of the marriage through his association (friendship?) with the older Bishop.
>
> Hear me out before you dismiss the theory outright!!! ;)
>
> Beckington was evidently a well-respected Bishop, a philanthropist and great builder, who'd been loyal in service to Henry VI but didn't appear to be a 'Lancastrian' in any active sense. (Indeed, he'd been the protégé of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and his main loyalty seems to have been to his patron Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury.) By the time Edward became King, Beckington had long been busily pottering about with his building schemes, scholarly interests and local diocese matters, retired fom national politics.
>
> From the looks of it, he was an honourable and sincere man, known for his piety; not involved in political intrigue, at least in his later years. Documentation in his name, combined with Stillington's testimony, would probably have been enough to convince the Three Estates.
>
> And Beckington was certainly a 'safe' choice for a secret marriage: he was old and infirm, likely to die soon (which he did), and wasn't in the habit of travelling outside the diocese of Bath and Wells. Funny, too, if you think about the chronology: EW and Edward married in secret in May 1464; the marriage was made public (if I remember correctly) at the end of September 1464. Beckington died in January 1465. What if Beckington was already too far gone by September to speak out, Eleanor herself silenced one way or another, and with Stillington in Edward's pocket, it was finally safe to declare EW his wife…?
>
> As for connections: the diocese of Bath and Wells was quite conveniently situated, being close to both Goodrich Castle of the Talbots, and Sudeley Castle of the Botelers.
>
> More importantly, Beckington was Henry VI's secretary back in the day, and he and Lord Sudeley were in the same circle in the late 1430s/early 1440s - they definitely knew each other, and for a fact they shared at least one close friend and associate, Lord Cromwell. Beckington had retired from national politics by the 1450s but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have associated with the Boteler family, especially as he and Sudeley had a hobby in common: both were enthusiastic builders.
>
> Back in the 1440s Beckington was also in the same royal circles with Thomas Bourchier, later Archbishop of Canterbury - who was, of course, brother of Eleanor Bourchier, Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law...
>
> Isn't it at least possible Beckington, a pious and esteemed old bishop with all these connections, was someone Eleanor might have known and trusted?
>
> I have absolutely no reason to believe any of this, mind you. I have no idea how Beckington would have been connected to the marriage. I have no idea if Edward and Eleanor even knew Beckington or ever went anywhere near his diocese during that time. I just have a hunch that this Thomas Beckington fellow is worth investigating more closely - even if he's not connected to the pre-contract, per se. Stillington wasn't just his successor as the Bishop of Bath and Wells; they were connected before, and it seems to me Beckington might even have been something of a mentor and/or patron to him in the 1440s. (Quoting from Beckington's DNB bio: 'He gathered around him a group of distinguished Oxford scholars, several of them Wykehamists, who served in his administration and were members of the Wells chapter. Among them were Thomas Chaundler, Robert Stillington, Thomas Gascoigne, and Gilbert Kymer.' source: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/1908)
>
> Indeed, it might even explain Stillington's later scruples: he might have been close and loyal to Beckington and felt a pang of guilt about helping, in self-interest, to hide the marriage the former had officiated in good faith.
>
> Now, a question: where exactly was the manor house left to Eleanor by her late husband, and did she live there as a widow?
>

Eileen
Are you still trying to get The War of the Roses by Pauline Harrison Pogmore? I checked Amazon and they said it was unavailable. I got a copy from The Richard III Museum last year. That's the one at Monk Bar. They had some rarities there; I also picked up Geoffrey Richardson's The Hollow Crowns on the War of the Roses.

I have also looked at the updated version of JAH's The Last Days of Richard III and compared it with my copy. The updated version has more on the DNA analyses at the end of the book. It goes into more detail, which is good for John as it vindicates him as the originator of the line of research.
Elaine

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I found it on Amazon.
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > > Wonderful news!
> > >
> > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > >> not.
> > >>
> > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > >>
> > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > >>
> > >> ~Weds
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:


"So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room."

Applies here, as well.
(Both the aversion *and* the cat hairs!)
Doug
Doug



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells




My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to
my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars
> (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to
> keep that under the bed!
>
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
> and Wells
>
>
> Â
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long
> search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to
> the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being
> dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very
> eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's
> > father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round
> > everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married
> > to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen
> > > point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters.
> > > > It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill
> > > > Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended
> > > > family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was
> > > > > married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne
> > > > > Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it
> > > > > not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and
> > > > > > questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we
> > > > > > are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record
> > > > > > straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's
> > > > > > delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had
> > > > > > > become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course
> > > > > > > pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest
> > > > > > > sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > > > > > for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was
> > > > > > > doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained
> > > > > > > the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP.
> > > > > > > PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

All this intermarriage confirms that the gene pool was really quite small. It also validates the view that the War of the Roses was fought between rival factions of the nobility i.e. feuding families, throughout the country in a mutually destructive war and that the "ordinary" people were casualities' of war who were caught up in the fighting.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> What I have found in my diggings so far is that the Stanleys don't seem to have as many connections as many of the other major families. It's interesting though that northerners married northerners, southerners married southerners, unless you were a hugely powerful family like the Nevilles or Beauchamps who spanned the country (and had lots of daughters to marry off). So Richard would always have an uphill battle in the south - I know that's been said before but he really did.
> One could also say that the Percies had a superior claim to the Beauforts (barred anyway), descended as they were from Roger Mortimer's daughter Elizabeth and thus from Lionel of Clarence. I know this was through the female line, but the Yorkists used that to their own advantage. Or were the Percies also barred and I don't know? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
>
> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Fortunately for Francis, he was Warwick's ward at the time and didn't have to live with his stepfather.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

So we have our 'familiars' - that's it, the Ricardian covern. Glad it's the 21st century!! :)



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 15:51
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room."

Applies here, as well.
(Both the aversion *and* the cat hairs!)
Doug
Doug

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells

My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to
my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars
> (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to
> keep that under the bed!
>
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
> and Wells
>
>
> Â
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long
> search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to
> the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being
> dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very
> eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's
> > father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round
> > everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married
> > to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen
> > > point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters.
> > > > It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill
> > > > Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended
> > > > family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was
> > > > > married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne
> > > > > Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it
> > > > > not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and
> > > > > > questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we
> > > > > > are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record
> > > > > > straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's
> > > > > > delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had
> > > > > > > become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course
> > > > > > > pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest
> > > > > > > sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > > > > > for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was
> > > > > > > doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained
> > > > > > > the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP.
> > > > > > > PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

It was indeed very small and that might explain why so many did not survive infancy? And you are quite right about the other. It's not like the Civil War where the common soldier was often there because of his conscience. You were probably there because you were unlucky enough to get caught up in your 'lord's' feud. I wonder how many foot soldiers were there because they embraced a Yorkist or Lancastrian cause or because they'd had a sword in their back? 



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 14:58
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 

All this intermarriage confirms that the gene pool was really quite small. It also validates the view that the War of the Roses was fought between rival factions of the nobility i.e. feuding families, throughout the country in a mutually destructive war and that the "ordinary" people were casualities' of war who were caught up in the fighting.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> What I have found in my diggings so far is that the Stanleys don't seem to have as many connections as many of the other major families. It's interesting though that northerners married northerners, southerners married southerners, unless you were a hugely powerful family like the Nevilles or Beauchamps who spanned the country (and had lots of daughters to marry off). So Richard would always have an uphill battle in the south - I know that's been said before but he really did.
> One could also say that the Percies had a superior claim to the Beauforts (barred anyway), descended as they were from Roger Mortimer's daughter Elizabeth and thus from Lionel of Clarence. I know this was through the female line, but the Yorkists used that to their own advantage. Or were the Percies also barred and I don't know? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
>
> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen point of time.......heck!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Fortunately for Francis, he was Warwick's ward at the time and didn't have to live with his stepfather.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry should be coven - am cursed in the spelling!


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 15:51
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"So that is the common link of Ricardians ,an aversion to housework - says
she as cat hairs float round the room."

Applies here, as well.
(Both the aversion *and* the cat hairs!)
Doug
Doug

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 18:12
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
and Wells

My dear Hilary,,,my diligent knows no bounds..which sadly does not apply to
my dusting abilities as it was quite covered in fluff...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's it; should have looked there. Bumped into it via - the Cheddars
> (scream!) who were related to JDLP's mother. My you must be diligent to
> keep that under the bed!
>
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath
> and Wells
>
>
> Â
>
> On consulting my Jones and Underwood 'The King's Mother' after a long
> search, eventually found under bed and it appears that MB was married to
> the very young gentleman, 7 years old, in 1450, the marriage being
> dissolved in 1453...MB being 6 years old. Yep....all in all a very
> eventful life.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And at one point I've discovered MB was betrothed to John of Lincoln's
> > father. Now there's a scenario. My word, that woman gets round
> > everywhere!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 16:38
> > Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > Bath and Wells
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married
> > to Catesby...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also William Stanley was married to Francis Lovell's mom at omen
> > > point of time.......heck!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Thomas Stanley was married to another of Warwick's sisters.
> > > > It did occur to me that maybe that was why Richard didn't kill
> > > > Stanley's son when he held him hostage. He was part of his extended
> > > > family.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way...I only discovered last night that Hastings was
> > > > > married to one of Warwick's sisters. Thus he would have been Anne
> > > > > Neville's uncle-in-law..it was a small world in those days was it
> > > > > not? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pansy....Its only by speculating, asking questions, and
> > > > > > questioning dubious *facts* , such as More's History, that we
> > > > > > are ever going to learn and hopefully set the record
> > > > > > straight...so you go ahead...speculate to your heart's
> > > > > > delight...eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I can't stop wondering where Rotherham fits in in all
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Some time before 1461,' says Rotherham's DNB bio, he had
> > > > > > > become the Earl of Oxford's chaplain. The Veres were of course
> > > > > > > pally with the Talbots...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wonder, how do you get from being the Lancastrian Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain in 1461 (and from having a rather modest
> > > > > > > sort of early career) to becoming the Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > > > > > for a Yorkist king in 1467? The DNB bio says his promotion was
> > > > > > > doubtless owing to Elizabeth Woodville, and he 'rapidly gained
> > > > > > > the king's confidence', but... why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why exactly had EW and Edward taken such a liking to the Earl
> > > > > > > of Oxford's chaplain?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (SPECULATION IS SO ADDICTIVE. ONCE I START, I CAN'T STOP.
> > > > > > > PLEASE HELP.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
Bath and Wells


> So we have our 'familiars' - that's it, the Ricardian covern. Glad it's
> the 21st century!! :)

I have a Siamese *mouse*, called Honeysuckle, if that helps (and thank you
and Eileen both for being kind to mice) - 10 mice, 37 rats, a pigeon who
can't fly very well (with another one soon to be added unto me) and a wild
hedgehog who spent the winter with me owing to having been a very sickly
baby, and is currently in a pen in the garden being prepared for release.

Elaine...thank you so much...I emailed the Yorkshire group last night and as yet have not heard back although it does look as if they have copies. The Richard lll museum in York is indeed handy for books...That is where I got my copy of Secret History....I shall take a look and see if they have the books they have in stock shown on their website.

Hopefully I will be able to get this book soonish...Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> Are you still trying to get The War of the Roses by Pauline Harrison Pogmore? I checked Amazon and they said it was unavailable. I got a copy from The Richard III Museum last year. That's the one at Monk Bar. They had some rarities there; I also picked up Geoffrey Richardson's The Hollow Crowns on the War of the Roses.
>
> I have also looked at the updated version of JAH's The Last Days of Richard III and compared it with my copy. The updated version has more on the DNA analyses at the end of the book. It goes into more detail, which is good for John as it vindicates him as the originator of the line of research.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I found it on Amazon.
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > > To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > > Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wonderful news!
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > > >> not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > > >>
> > > >> ~Weds
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
> > > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello. to get Who's who in the War of the Roses contact Pauline Harrison Pogmore secretary of the Yorkshire Branch, email scarletlion1119@...
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> Are you still trying to get The War of the Roses by Pauline Harrison Pogmore? I checked Amazon and they said it was unavailable. I got a copy from The Richard III Museum last year. That's the one at Monk Bar. They had some rarities there; I also picked up Geoffrey Richardson's The Hollow Crowns on the War of the Roses.
>
> I have also looked at the updated version of JAH's The Last Days of Richard III and compared it with my copy. The updated version has more on the DNA analyses at the end of the book. It goes into more detail, which is good for John as it vindicates him as the originator of the line of research.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I found it on Amazon.
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > > To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > > Bath and Wells
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wonderful news!
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > > >> not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > > >>
> > > >> ~Weds
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
> > > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thank you Christine...I will give that a whirl...Eileen

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello. to get Who's who in the War of the Roses contact Pauline Harrison Pogmore secretary of the Yorkshire Branch, email scarletlion1119@...
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen
> > Are you still trying to get The War of the Roses by Pauline Harrison Pogmore? I checked Amazon and they said it was unavailable. I got a copy from The Richard III Museum last year. That's the one at Monk Bar. They had some rarities there; I also picked up Geoffrey Richardson's The Hollow Crowns on the War of the Roses.
> >
> > I have also looked at the updated version of JAH's The Last Days of Richard III and compared it with my copy. The updated version has more on the DNA analyses at the end of the book. It goes into more detail, which is good for John as it vindicates him as the originator of the line of research.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I found it on Amazon.
> > >
> > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Where can I get the Who was who in the WOTR? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is good news as her "Who was who in the Wars of the Roses" is excellent.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@>
> > > > To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:28 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> > > > Bath and Wells
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Wonderful news!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM,
> > > > > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> > > > > <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello All, fret not, I can tell you that Pauline Harrison Pogmore is
> > > > > working on a booklet that will explain all the relationships from Edward
> > > > > III down, the marriages, children, who they married etc, god bless her,
> > > > > don't know how she does it they are so confusing.
> > > > > Don't know how long it will take her mind you.
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie.
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Medieval soap operas are FUN! It's keeping the characters straight that's
> > > > >> not.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Woulda helped too if somebody had given these families a "What to Name
> > > > >> Yer Baby" book.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am lost too. Was Richard, do y'think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ~Weds
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In
> > > > >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > >> Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Oh, my love.....I am wandering in a labyrinth of Beauforts, Nevilles,
> > > > >> > Percys, etc. etc. etc. I need a good solid course in 15th and 16th
> > > > >> > Century British History, not to mention, committing to memory the lines
> > > > >> > of all the noble families starting with old Willy the Conqueror, right
> > > > >> > up to Queen Vicky! I am pretty much good from there, but alas, I am
> > > > >> > lost in prior or priory times!!!!!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Claire, whoa! What were you thinking?!! LOL!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 22, 2013, at 10:50 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> Bath and Wells
>
> > So we have our 'familiars' - that's it, the Ricardian covern. Glad it's
> > the 21st century!! :)
>
> I have a Siamese *mouse*, called Honeysuckle, if that helps (and thank you
> and Eileen both for being kind to mice) - 10 mice, 37 rats, a pigeon who
> can't fly very well (with another one soon to be added unto me) and a wild
> hedgehog who spent the winter with me owing to having been a very sickly
> baby, and is currently in a pen in the garden being prepared for release.
>
>

Oh, sweet heaven, I'm not that brave. P Gregory can have it.

~Weds

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Wednesday,
>  
> You really should write  a novel, it would outsell P Gregory.
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
> Hastings *was* married to Catesby in a private (not sekrit) ceremony. Hastings died because Harry Buckingham was jellus and wanted Catesby all to himself. He told Dickon that Hastings was plotting to kill Buckingham and The Blessed Protector of England, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, no record exists as to Catesby's reaction to the loss of his one true luv.
>
> ~Wedz.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
>
>
>
>
>

37 rats!! Once had 11 hamsters and thought that was OTT, But I do like small creatures with attitude. Goodnight Ishita, I"m signing off the day shift, H



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 23:54
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells


 

Claire, whoa! What were you thinking?!! LOL!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 22, 2013, at 10:50 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of
> Bath and Wells
>
> > So we have our 'familiars' - that's it, the Ricardian covern. Glad it's
> > the 21st century!! :)
>
> I have a Siamese *mouse*, called Honeysuckle, if that helps (and thank you
> and Eileen both for being kind to mice) - 10 mice, 37 rats, a pigeon who
> can't fly very well (with another one soon to be added unto me) and a wild
> hedgehog who spent the winter with me owing to having been a very sickly
> baby, and is currently in a pen in the garden being prepared for release.
>
>

I don't think PG would have the wit to come up with that plotline!


From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 3:29
Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells

 
Oh, sweet heaven, I'm not that brave. P Gregory can have it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Wednesday,
>  
> You really should write  a novel, it would outsell P Gregory.
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells
>
>  
> Hastings *was* married to Catesby in a private (not sekrit) ceremony. Hastings died because Harry Buckingham was jellus and wanted Catesby all to himself. He told Dickon that Hastings was plotting to kill Buckingham and The Blessed Protector of England, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, no record exists as to Catesby's reaction to the loss of his one true luv.
>
> ~Wedz.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Crickey...I get so muddled at times I thought that Hastings was married to Catesby...:0)
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
wrote:
>
>...One could also say that the Percies had a superior claim to the Beauforts
(barred anyway), descended as they were from Roger Mortimer's daughter Elizabeth
and thus from Lionel of Clarence. I know this was through the female line, but
the Yorkists used that to their own advantage. Or were the Percies also barred
and I don't know?

T replies-
Actually the Percy royal descent goes like this:
Roger Mortimer>Edmund Mortimer (md. Phillipa of Clarence)>Elizabeth Mortimer (md. Henry 'Hotspur" Percy)

So yes, they were senior to the barred Beauforts (and not barred, no reason, no illegitamacy).

Of the Clarence line, senior to the Percys was Eizabeth's brother Roger Mortimer, grandfather of Richard, Duke of York, whose line of course takes the throne.

Also senior to the Percys were the Bourchiers, as Isabella Bourchier was the only sibling of Richard, D. of York.

Clear as mud? Here's a link to the descendants of Lionel of Clence's dau. Phillipa to make it easier-
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00005738&tree=LEO

Hope that helps, it is indeed a tangled web.
T

 That's what I thought. It's just interesting that no-one ever mentions these potential rival claims when claiming HT as the 'last hope'. In fact so too would the Hollands who were descended from HIV's sister (ie the legitimate line of John of Gaunt).



________________________________
From: tbuck55 <tandjules@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 2:03
Subject: Noble Relationships (Was: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells)

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
wrote:
>
>...One could also say that the Percies had a superior claim to the Beauforts
(barred anyway), descended as they were from Roger Mortimer's daughter Elizabeth
and thus from Lionel of Clarence. I know this was through the female line, but
the Yorkists used that to their own advantage. Or were the Percies also barred
and I don't know?

T replies-
Actually the Percy royal descent goes like this:
Roger Mortimer>Edmund Mortimer (md. Phillipa of Clarence)>Elizabeth Mortimer (md. Henry 'Hotspur" Percy)

So yes, they were senior to the barred Beauforts (and not barred, no reason, no illegitamacy).

Of the Clarence line, senior to the Percys was Eizabeth's brother Roger Mortimer, grandfather of Richard, Duke of York, whose line of course takes the throne.

Also senior to the Percys were the Bourchiers, as Isabella Bourchier was the only sibling of Richard, D. of York.

Clear as mud? Here's a link to the descendants of Lionel of Clence's dau. Phillipa to make it easier-
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00005738&tree=LEO

Hope that helps, it is indeed a tangled web.
T

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Noble Relationships (Was: Thomas
Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells)


> That's what I thought. It's just interesting that no-one ever mentions
> these potential rival claims when claiming HT as the 'last hope'. In fact
> so too would the Hollands who were descended from HIV's sister (ie the
> legitimate line of John of Gaunt).

Indeed. Henry was basically an invader with only a tenuous family
connection to the throne. In some respects that's fair enough - the whole
Plantagenet claim derived from William the Bastard, after all. But I reckon
it's one of the reasons so many people want to cling on to the idea of
Richard as usurper and Henry as the Heir of Lancaster which he himself
hardly claimed to be: part of the British and especially the English sense
of national self is the idea that we've never been conquered since 1066, and
that we defeated the French conclusively at Agincourt, so the idea that the
Tudors came to power via a French-backed invasion is unpalatable.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  That's what I thought. It's just interesting that no-one ever mentions these potential rival claims when claiming HT as the 'last hope'. In fact so too would the Hollands who were descended from HIV's sister (ie the legitimate line of John of Gaunt).

Carol responds:

Henry Tudor was (ostensibly) the last *Lancastrian* hope (the more legitimate heirs all being members of Continental royal houses. The Percies and Bourchiers would have been Yorkist claimants (or should I say Clarencian?), but farther back than any descendant of Richard, Duke of York. No diehard Lancastrian, say, the de Vere Earl of Oxford, would have supported them.

Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (Anne of York's first husband) was a Lancastrian but loyal to Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster. He never tried to press his own claim, which was weaker than Richard of York's in any case. Then again, he was in no position to do so after he was left for dead at Barnet and then imprisoned. He drowned on the way to Picquigny. I'd be very surprised if his death on a ship full of enemies was an accident.

Carol

Wasn't his daughter married to Thomas Grey (Dorset)? Now there's a thought!
 
It depends whether you're thinking Lancaster and York or just legitimate heirs.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 22:19
Subject: Re: Noble Relationships (Was: Thomas Beckington, Bishop of Bath and Wells)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  That's what I thought. It's just interesting that no-one ever mentions these potential rival claims when claiming HT as the 'last hope'. In fact so too would the Hollands who were descended from HIV's sister (ie the legitimate line of John of Gaunt).

Carol responds:

Henry Tudor was (ostensibly) the last *Lancastrian* hope (the more legitimate heirs all being members of Continental royal houses. The Percies and Bourchiers would have been Yorkist claimants (or should I say Clarencian?), but farther back than any descendant of Richard, Duke of York. No diehard Lancastrian, say, the de Vere Earl of Oxford, would have supported them.

Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (Anne of York's first husband) was a Lancastrian but loyal to Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster. He never tried to press his own claim, which was weaker than Richard of York's in any case. Then again, he was in no position to do so after he was left for dead at Barnet and then imprisoned. He drowned on the way to Picquigny. I'd be very surprised if his death on a ship full of enemies was an accident.

Carol