Buckingham's son disguised as a girl?

Among some predictable speculations on Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard in 1483, our acquaintance Susan Higginbotham makes one interesting statement regarding Buckingham's son, Edward Stafford, who was a few months away from his sixth birthday at the time:

"Edward was a mere child at the time of his father's death and had been sent away—disguised as a little girl—when his father took flight."

http://www.themedievalchronicle.com/SEPTOCT01/Buckingham%20Reb%20MarApr2010.html

As usual, Susan doesn't cite a source. Has anyone heard this story and, if so, do you know where it comes from?

It strikes me as just possible that Edward IV's sons could have been disguised as girls and the story transferred to Edward Stafford. Or it could relate to George of Clarence's attempt to smuggle *his* son out of the country. Or it could be true, but why would Buckingham fear harm to his son--unless he really did murder the "Princes" and feared retribution if the rebellion failed?

Carol

In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.

Cheers,

Dorothea




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: Buckingham's son disguised as a girl?



 
Among some predictable speculations on Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard in 1483, our acquaintance Susan Higginbotham makes one interesting statement regarding Buckingham's son, Edward Stafford, who was a few months away from his sixth birthday at the time:

"Edward was a mere child at the time of his father's death and had been sent awaydisguised as a little girlwhen his father took flight."

http://www.themedievalchronicle.com/SEPTOCT01/Buckingham%20Reb%20MarApr2010.html

As usual, Susan doesn't cite a source. Has anyone heard this story and, if so, do you know where it comes from?

It strikes me as just possible that Edward IV's sons could have been disguised as girls and the story transferred to Edward Stafford. Or it could relate to George of Clarence's attempt to smuggle *his* son out of the country. Or it could be true, but why would Buckingham fear harm to his son--unless he really did murder the "Princes" and feared retribution if the rebellion failed?

Carol

There's a 1989 novel out there by Pamela Belle called "The Lodestar" that features Edward IV's sons being disguised as girls to get them out of the Tower, and then out of London (after an overnight stay in a fictional character's mother's London inn). It then goes on to feature the Gipping scenario. (The novel's well-researched and written, by the way, and features a fictional rebellious Percy in service to Richard.)

So if there's no historical grounding for Higginbotham's idea, she might have "adapted" it to her own uses.

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Among some predictable speculations on Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard in 1483, our acquaintance Susan Higginbotham makes one interesting statement regarding Buckingham's son, Edward Stafford, who was a few months away from his sixth birthday at the time:
>
> "Edward was a mere child at the time of his father's death and had been sent away�disguised as a little girl�when his father took flight."
>
> http://www.themedievalchronicle.com/SEPTOCT01/Buckingham%20Reb%20MarApr2010.html
>
> As usual, Susan doesn't cite a source. Has anyone heard this story and, if so, do you know where it comes from?
>
> It strikes me as just possible that Edward IV's sons could have been disguised as girls and the story transferred to Edward Stafford. Or it could relate to George of Clarence's attempt to smuggle *his* son out of the country. Or it could be true, but why would Buckingham fear harm to his son--unless he really did murder the "Princes" and feared retribution if the rebellion failed?
>
> Carol
>

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.

Carol responds:

Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> >
> > In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?

Carol again:

Found the reference, but it still doesn't answer my question regarding the identity of Elizabeth de la Bere or why we should give any credence to what she says. Yet another biased Tudor source?

http://books.google.com/books?id=w0A12S_u7DQC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=Elizabeth+de+la+Bere+Stafford&source=bl&ots=vsyyZWd1O8&sig=Lei_4x0D79YnmYH8e4RMC5CgCgw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u7a0Ubb0EoqTyQH42YDwDQ&ved=0CHcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Elizabeth%20de%20la%20Bere%20Stafford&f=false

But note that Susan also mentions what we know to be true, that in December 1483 Richard allowed Katherine Stafford, Duchess of Buckingham, to bring her children and servants to London, which makes nonsense of the Edward-disguised-as-a-girl-and-hidden-from-Richard story. Susan *suggests* without any grounds except her dislike of Richard that she was boarded in a convent somewhere, an idea for which there is no basis whatever in the historical record.

Regarding Susan's "meticulous research," she's very familiar with Tudor sources, as well as Mancini and Croyland. Unfortunately, like many other writers with a Tudor bias, she takes what she reads as true when it suits her preconceptions. At least she concedes (in her blog) that we should regard the story that Buckingham intended to stab Richard with a knife with suspicion. Evidently, the hostile witness who told the story wanted to make it look as if Edward Stafford approved his father's (undoubtedly imaginary) desire to assassinate a king.

I still want to know who Elizabeth de la Bere was. I can't find anything about her other than Susan's reference.

And for anyone who doubts that Susan Higginbotham puts her research--and the resources of the Richard III Society, which she gratefully acknowledges--to bad use, just check out the study questions at the end of the novel, which include the following gems:

"Harry [Buckingham] supports several of Richard's heinous actions because he loves his friend."

"When Richard finally tells Harry that he loves him [sic], Harry realizes that he has been waiting for these words of validation for fourteen years. Does Richard really love Harry or does he just use Harry's love to manipulate him into doing his bidding."

"Harry violently rapes his wife after she insults Richard and spits in Harry's face. Months later, after he has repented of all his wrongdoing, she forgives him."

"Harry is easily duped by Richard because he loves him and trusts him. He doesn't see that he's committing treason and usurping the rightful king."

"Kate dislikes Richard from the moment Harry starts raving about how wonderful he is. Is this dislike a result of jealousy? Or does Kate see the latent danger in Richard?"

Talk about loaded questions. Yes, "Stolen Crown" is a novel, but how odd that "meticulous research" can lead to such untenable conclusions.

Poor, deluded Harry loving that sinister, dangerous Richard, who is only using him to help him commit heinous deeds!

Carol

Nothing on the DNB.  I did a quick internet search and found  one also known as Elizabeth Butler (!!) but she died in 1428.
 
There might be a later one but I haven't the time right now to do a proper search.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013, 16:46
Subject: Re: Buckingham's son disguised as a girl?

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.

Carol responds:

Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?

Carol

Do you think there is confusion here with Staffords son Edward being sent abroad for his safety and Clarence plans to send his Edward abroad? Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?
>
> Carol again:
>
> Found the reference, but it still doesn't answer my question regarding the identity of Elizabeth de la Bere or why we should give any credence to what she says. Yet another biased Tudor source?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=w0A12S_u7DQC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=Elizabeth+de+la+Bere+Stafford&source=bl&ots=vsyyZWd1O8&sig=Lei_4x0D79YnmYH8e4RMC5CgCgw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u7a0Ubb0EoqTyQH42YDwDQ&ved=0CHcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Elizabeth%20de%20la%20Bere%20Stafford&f=false
>
> But note that Susan also mentions what we know to be true, that in December 1483 Richard allowed Katherine Stafford, Duchess of Buckingham, to bring her children and servants to London, which makes nonsense of the Edward-disguised-as-a-girl-and-hidden-from-Richard story. Susan *suggests* without any grounds except her dislike of Richard that she was boarded in a convent somewhere, an idea for which there is no basis whatever in the historical record.
>
> Regarding Susan's "meticulous research," she's very familiar with Tudor sources, as well as Mancini and Croyland. Unfortunately, like many other writers with a Tudor bias, she takes what she reads as true when it suits her preconceptions. At least she concedes (in her blog) that we should regard the story that Buckingham intended to stab Richard with a knife with suspicion. Evidently, the hostile witness who told the story wanted to make it look as if Edward Stafford approved his father's (undoubtedly imaginary) desire to assassinate a king.
>
> I still want to know who Elizabeth de la Bere was. I can't find anything about her other than Susan's reference.
>
> And for anyone who doubts that Susan Higginbotham puts her research--and the resources of the Richard III Society, which she gratefully acknowledges--to bad use, just check out the study questions at the end of the novel, which include the following gems:
>
> "Harry [Buckingham] supports several of Richard's heinous actions because he loves his friend."
>
> "When Richard finally tells Harry that he loves him [sic], Harry realizes that he has been waiting for these words of validation for fourteen years. Does Richard really love Harry or does he just use Harry's love to manipulate him into doing his bidding."
>
> "Harry violently rapes his wife after she insults Richard and spits in Harry's face. Months later, after he has repented of all his wrongdoing, she forgives him."
>
> "Harry is easily duped by Richard because he loves him and trusts him. He doesn't see that he's committing treason and usurping the rightful king."
>
> "Kate dislikes Richard from the moment Harry starts raving about how wonderful he is. Is this dislike a result of jealousy? Or does Kate see the latent danger in Richard?"
>
> Talk about loaded questions. Yes, "Stolen Crown" is a novel, but how odd that "meticulous research" can lead to such untenable conclusions.
>
> Poor, deluded Harry loving that sinister, dangerous Richard, who is only using him to help him commit heinous deeds!
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Do you think there is confusion here with Staffords son Edward being sent abroad for his safety and Clarence plans to send his Edward abroad? Eileen

Carol responds:

Yes, possibly. They were both named Edward (was Buckingham trying to appease E4 or gain his attention by flattery in choosing that name?) and the boys were only three years apart. Edward Stafford was born right around the same time that Clarence was executed, but, still, whoever this Elizabeth de la Bere person was could have mixed up the two Edwards (and confused Edward IV with Richard III). We know what happened to rumors from the 1480s by the time they reached the reign of Henry VIII?

I think I'll try addressing a civil question to Susan H. on the other forum and see if I get an answer.

Carol


> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Found the reference, but it still doesn't answer my question regarding the identity of Elizabeth de la Bere or why we should give any credence to what she says. Yet another biased Tudor source?
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=w0A12S_u7DQC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=Elizabeth+de+la+Bere+Stafford&source=bl&ots=vsyyZWd1O8&sig=Lei_4x0D79YnmYH8e4RMC5CgCgw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u7a0Ubb0EoqTyQH42YDwDQ&ved=0CHcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Elizabeth%20de%20la%20Bere%20Stafford&f=false
> >
> > But note that Susan also mentions what we know to be true, that in December 1483 Richard allowed Katherine Stafford, Duchess of Buckingham, to bring her children and servants to London, which makes nonsense of the Edward-disguised-as-a-girl-and-hidden-from-Richard story. Susan *suggests* without any grounds except her dislike of Richard that she was boarded in a convent somewhere, an idea for which there is no basis whatever in the historical record.
> >
> > Regarding Susan's "meticulous research," she's very familiar with Tudor sources, as well as Mancini and Croyland. Unfortunately, like many other writers with a Tudor bias, she takes what she reads as true when it suits her preconceptions. At least she concedes (in her blog) that we should regard the story that Buckingham intended to stab Richard with a knife with suspicion. Evidently, the hostile witness who told the story wanted to make it look as if Edward Stafford approved his father's (undoubtedly imaginary) desire to assassinate a king.
> >
> > I still want to know who Elizabeth de la Bere was. I can't find anything about her other than Susan's reference.
> >
> > And for anyone who doubts that Susan Higginbotham puts her research--and the resources of the Richard III Society, which she gratefully acknowledges--to bad use, just check out the study questions at the end of the novel, which include the following gems:
> >
> > "Harry [Buckingham] supports several of Richard's heinous actions because he loves his friend."
> >
> > "When Richard finally tells Harry that he loves him [sic], Harry realizes that he has been waiting for these words of validation for fourteen years. Does Richard really love Harry or does he just use Harry's love to manipulate him into doing his bidding."
> >
> > "Harry violently rapes his wife after she insults Richard and spits in Harry's face. Months later, after he has repented of all his wrongdoing, she forgives him."
> >
> > "Harry is easily duped by Richard because he loves him and trusts him. He doesn't see that he's committing treason and usurping the rightful king."
> >
> > "Kate dislikes Richard from the moment Harry starts raving about how wonderful he is. Is this dislike a result of jealousy? Or does Kate see the latent danger in Richard?"
> >
> > Talk about loaded questions. Yes, "Stolen Crown" is a novel, but how odd that "meticulous research" can lead to such untenable conclusions.
> >
> > Poor, deluded Harry loving that sinister, dangerous Richard, who is only using him to help him commit heinous deeds!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I have just found this http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/richard.html which has some information about the de la Bere family, including an Elizabeth and being around at the right time, in the right part of the country, with definite connections to Buckingham. Including mention of Buckingham's son, but nothing about being disguised as a girl.

Carol :

Interesting. Who was Elizabeth de la Bere?

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I have just found this http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/richard.html which has some information about the de la Bere family, including an Elizabeth and being around at the right time, in the right part of the country, with definite connections to Buckingham. Including mention of Buckingham’s son, but nothing about being disguised as a girl.

Carol responds:

Very interesting! Thanks for that link. But note the Tudor bias in such statements as "He [Buckingham] had, no doubt, received many broken promises and his position had not become as elevated as he had hoped" and a reference to "the more stable reign of Henry VII." (Um. Guess again, David Nash Ford.) At least we get a hint of the Tudor version of events with "[Buckingham's] son (and heir), however, was left behind in Herefordshire, hidden with Sir Richard De la Bere and his wife, Elizabeth, at Kinnersley Castle. The Duke of Buckingham was to send Sir Richard a token when his son was to join him, but he was caught and hung in Salisbury before he ever had the chance. The young lad survived however, despite having a price on his head and the castle being searched several times. He eventually escaped to Hereford."

We can see just how accurate this piece of propaganda is with Buckingham being "hung"/hanged rather than beheaded and "the young lad . . . having a price on his head" but escaping. For crying out loud, where do people get this stuff? Even Susan H. concedes that Katherine and her children (that would be Edward, Elizabeth, Henry, Anne, Humphrey, Margaret--a lot of kids in a short time!) came to London with Richard's permission. I can just see "the young lad" (aged seven and a half at the time of Richard's death) "escaping" to Hereford (from Hertfordshire?)!

Meanwhile, I've posted the following message to the American branch site:

"Question for Susan Higginbotham:

"Hi, Susan. In your commentary at the back of "Stolen Crown," you refer to Elizabeth de la Bere as the source for a story about Edward Stafford (a child of not quite six at the time) having been disguised as a little girl to hide him from Richard III's men (though you add that Richard allowed Katherine, Duchess of Buckingham, to come to London with her children about a month later, which casts some doubt on this intriguing story).

"I can't find any information on Elizabeth de la Bere. Can you tell me who she was and how to access the Edward Stafford family papers where you found this account? Also, when was Elizabeth's account written? Did she present it as a rumor or a fully developed story? Any details you can provide would be appreciated, in particular the date of the account, Elizabeth's birth date, and her relationship to the Staffords.

"There was, of course, a similar story about a foiled plot to smuggle Edward, Earl of Warwick (just three years older than Edward Stafford) out of the country and replace him with another child (as described in George of Clarence's attainder). I wonder whether that story somehow might have became transferred to Edward Stafford (with a few alterations such as the little-girl disguise and the switch from Edward IV to Richard III as the pursuing king), by the reign of Henry VIII.

"Thanks very much.

"Carol"

We'll see whether she comes through. Of course, we now know who Elizabeth de la Bere was, but I'm still curious to see how Susan responds.

Carol

Oh, yes, I noticed the Tudor bias! Grrr. But I took no notice because it was the de la Bere references, lands, involvement that struck me. No sources, of course, but at least I think we can be hopeful that it is the right de la Bere family, marchers at that.Girders.net has a page for Sir Richard Delabere, d. 1514. http://www.girders.net/index.php?dir=De%2F

Sandra

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I have just found this http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/richard.html which has some information about the de la Bere family, including an Elizabeth and being around at the right time, in the right part of the country, with definite connections to Buckingham. Including mention of Buckingham’s son, but nothing about being disguised as a girl.

Carol responds:

Very interesting! Thanks for that link. But note the Tudor bias in such statements as "He [Buckingham] had, no doubt, received many broken promises and his position had not become as elevated as he had hoped" and a reference to "the more stable reign of Henry VII." (Um. Guess again, David Nash Ford.) At least we get a hint of the Tudor version of events with "[Buckingham's] son (and heir), however, was left behind in Herefordshire, hidden with Sir Richard De la Bere and his wife, Elizabeth, at Kinnersley Castle. The Duke of Buckingham was to send Sir Richard a token when his son was to join him, but he was caught and hung in Salisbury before he ever had the chance. The young lad survived however, despite having a price on his head and the castle being searched several times. He eventually escaped to Hereford."

We can see just how accurate this piece of propaganda is with Buckingham being "hung"/hanged rather than beheaded and "the young lad . . . having a price on his head" but escaping. For crying out loud, where do people get this stuff? Even Susan H. concedes that Katherine and her children (that would be Edward, Elizabeth, Henry, Anne, Humphrey, Margaret--a lot of kids in a short time!) came to London with Richard's permission. I can just see "the young lad" (aged seven and a half at the time of Richard's death) "escaping" to Hereford (from Hertfordshire?)!

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, yes, I noticed the Tudor bias! Grrr. But I took no notice because it was the de la Bere references, lands, involvement that struck me. No sources, of course, but at least I think we can be hopeful that it is the right de la Bere family, marchers at that.Girders.net has a page for Sir Richard Delabere, d. 1514. http://www.girders.net/index.php?dir=De%2F
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Thanks, Sandra. Now this is crazy. One statement in the article you cited seems to be correct--de la Bere had Yorkist affiliations despite his Beaufort connections. According to girders, he was on a number of commissions of the peace in Herefordshire (including one in 1474 against Richard's future allies, the Vaughns and Herberts!) for both Edward and Richard. He was pardoned (by Richard) for some unspecified offense on November 4, 1484 (it can't be Buckingham's rebellion a year earlier) and then continued to work for him clear up to June 1485. He apparently was not at Bosworth, but transferred allegiance seamlessly to Henry and fought for him at Stoke.

From the looks of this list of commissions, it does *not* look as if he aided Buckingham, much less hid B's little son. Could the story have been made up after Bosworth to hide de la Bere's service to Richard?

Just to be sure, I checked Richard's proclamation against Buckingham. De la Bere is not mentioned. I can't remember whether we have Buckingham's attainder on file somewhere (I don't have it in my personal files). It should be with the acts of Parliament for Richard's reign. But since de la Bere continued to serve Richard, according to girders.com, I'd be very surprised to find it there.

It seems to me that we've found yet another pathetic little anti-Richard legend like the one about Richard sadly observing the torture of a man (Wyatt) loyal to Tudor and wanting him to switch sides. (The same story has the prisoner being fed by a cat.)

Does anyone have access to "History of Parliament 1439-1509" vol.I. Biographies of Members of the Commons by J. C. Wedgewood (pp. 266-7) to find out what offense de la Bere was pardoned for on November 5, 1484?

Carol

Hi Dorothea & Carol,

Susan probably got this from an old Ricardian. The story comes from an Elizabethan document purporting to be a copy of an account written for Edward Stafford after he grew up by a lady who had helped to hide him. It is highly interesting but full of inaccuracies and puzzles. For instance, it claims that Buckingham hid his sons (aged 5 and 2!) because Richard had offered a reward for their capture - quite untrue. It ends just after Buckingham's execution with Edward Stafford being smuggled off to a woman in Hereford dressed as a girl and his mother, the Duchess of Buckingham, being arrested by "Sir John Hurleston's brother" and brought to London to King Richard.
In fact, Richard did not reach London until 26th November, three and a half weeks after Buckingham's death, and an item in Harley 433 indicates that the Duchess' removal to London happened several weeks later and was her own idea, and that she brought her children with her, viz:
"Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."
Marie



--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> In the 'Author's Note' to the Stolen Crown, Susan says that "An account by Elizabeth de la Bere found among Edward Stafford's family papers indicates that ... Edward himself was dressed as a little girl and hidden from Richard III's officials during this time."  I am not sure where she found Elizabeth's account though.  Knowing Susan's meticulous research (though I do not always share her conclusions), I don't think she made this up.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dorothea
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013 11:20 AM
> Subject: Buckingham's son disguised as a girl?
>
>
>
>  
> Among some predictable speculations on Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard in 1483, our acquaintance Susan Higginbotham makes one interesting statement regarding Buckingham's son, Edward Stafford, who was a few months away from his sixth birthday at the time:
>
> "Edward was a mere child at the time of his father's death and had been sent awayâ€"disguised as a little girlâ€"when his father took flight."
>
> http://www.themedievalchronicle.com/SEPTOCT01/Buckingham%20Reb%20MarApr2010.html
>
> As usual, Susan doesn't cite a source. Has anyone heard this story and, if so, do you know where it comes from?
>
> It strikes me as just possible that Edward IV's sons could have been disguised as girls and the story transferred to Edward Stafford. Or it could relate to George of Clarence's attempt to smuggle *his* son out of the country. Or it could be true, but why would Buckingham fear harm to his son--unless he really did murder the "Princes" and feared retribution if the rebellion failed?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> [snip] He was pardoned (by Richard) for some unspecified offense on November 4, 1484 (it can't be Buckingham's rebellion a year earlier) and then continued to work for him clear up to June 1485. He apparently was not at Bosworth, but transferred allegiance seamlessly to Henry and fought for him at Stoke.
>
> From the looks of this list of commissions, it does *not* look as if he aided Buckingham, much less hid B's little son. Could the story have been made up after Bosworth to hide de la Bere's service to Richard?
>
> Just to be sure, I checked Richard's proclamation against Buckingham. De la Bere is not mentioned. I can't remember whether we have Buckingham's attainder on file somewhere (I don't have it in my personal files). It should be with the acts of Parliament for Richard's reign. But since de la Bere continued to serve Richard, according to girders.com, I'd be very surprised to find it there.

[snip]

Carol again:

Hm. Ancestry.com says that the pardon was for siding with Buckingham, but that doesn't seem to fit well with the other evidence:

"Sir RICHARD DELABERE, of Kinnersley, born about 1448, knighted 17 Jan. 1478, sheriff of Herefordshire 1478-9, 1482-3, 1492-3, 1510-11, MP Herefordshire 1495, adhered to Buckingham in his 1483 rebellion, and pardoned by Richard III 5 Nov. 1484; made banneret at Stoke 1487, found co-heir to Isabel Barre, countess of Devon, in September 1489. He married 1st, Anne Audley, daughter of John, Lord Audley, by his second wife Eleanor Holland, and had one son and four daughters. He married 2ndly, Elizabeth (married 2ndly, Thomas Baskerville, esquire), daughter of William Mores, Sergeant to the Hall of Henry VII, and had a further ten sons and six daughters. Sir Richard died 15 July 1514, and was buried in Hereford Cathedral. By his second wife he was ancestor of the Delaberes of Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. By his first wife, he had one surviving son and daughter."

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=johanson&id=I14683

Nothing about hiding little Edward Stafford (an incident which Susan depicts in the novel, in addition to mentioning it in the notes. Possibly, she was born in the wrong century--all that pathos would fit better in the Victorian era).

As for the accuracy of ancestry.com, did you know that it lists Edward IV as having *four* wives?

"Marriage 1 Elizabeth (Lucy) Wayte

Children

Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle b: 1461
Grace Plantagenet
Elizabeth Plantagenet b: ABT 1464


"Marriage 2 Elizabeth de Lyon


"Marriage 3 Eleanor Butler


"Marriage 4 Elizabeth (Wydeville) Woodville , of Rivers b: ABT 1437 in Grafton Regis,Northants

Married: 1 MAY 1464 [snip children]"

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=maclaren&id=I28968

Yep. Trustworthy. That Edward really liked women named Elizabeth. Eleanor, not so much.

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dorothea & Carol,
>
> Susan probably got this from an old Ricardian. The story comes from an Elizabethan document purporting to be a copy of an account written for Edward Stafford after he grew up by a lady who had helped to hide him. It is highly interesting but full of inaccuracies and puzzles. For instance, it claims that Buckingham hid his sons (aged 5 and 2!) because Richard had offered a reward for their capture - quite untrue. It ends just after Buckingham's execution with Edward Stafford being smuggled off to a woman in Hereford dressed as a girl and his mother, the Duchess of Buckingham, being arrested by "Sir John Hurleston's brother" and brought to London to King Richard.
> In fact, Richard did not reach London until 26th November, three and a half weeks after Buckingham's death, and an item in Harley 433 indicates that the Duchess' removal to London happened several weeks later and was her own idea, and that she brought her children with her, viz:
> "Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."
> Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'd love to read that old article--which, I hope, treated the story with due skepticism. Unfortunately, Susan has expanded upon it in her novel and treated the source as legitimate in her notes. Pretty soon, it will become "fact." (According to Wikipedia, admittedly not the greatest source of information, Buckingham had *three* sons, all under the age of six. The idea that Richard would post a reward for their capture is just absurd.)

Just checked the other forum. No answer yet from Susan.

Carol

Carol earlier:
> Thanks, Marie. I'd love to read that old article--which, I hope, treated the story with due skepticism. Unfortunately, Susan has expanded upon it in her novel and treated the source as legitimate in her notes. Pretty soon, it will become "fact." (According to Wikipedia, admittedly not the greatest source of information, Buckingham had *three* sons, all under the age of six. The idea that Richard would post a reward for their capture is just absurd.)
>
> Just checked the other forum. No answer yet from Susan.
>
Carol again:

Since Susan shows no signs of responding, I'll quote what she wrote in another blog (which, aside from a few sneers at Richard, is reasonably informative and objective up to this point though some of her sources are questionable):

"Leaving his daughters at his castle of Brecon in Wales, he went with his wife and sons to Weobley in Herefordshire, where Sir Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers had a home. Lord Ferrers' role in this episode is a mystery. He was not named as being a rebel, and later fought and died for Richard III at Bosworth, but he had sheltered the young Henry Tudor in 1470 when the boy was in the care of Anne, Countess of Pembroke, Walter's sister . . . . Perhaps Ferrers was an unwilling or absent host; perhaps the presence of the duchess and the couple's small sons allowed him to tell Richard later that he had acted merely out of consideration for their plight.

"Katherine's presence at Weobley with her husband and sons raises its own questions. If she really were the despised wife that Mancini describes, would Harry have brought her along for his last, doomed stand before he took to flight? Katherine's brothers Lionel and Richard had also joined the rebellion; perhaps Katherine played a role in contacting them once Harry decided to throw his lot in with the rebels.

"After spending a week speaking to the local men, presumably in a fruitless attempt to gain support, Buckingham—now with a reward of a thousand pounds on his head— disguised himself and fled, leaving what was left of his army behind. Before this, according to a memoir by a family retainer,[35] he entrusted his heir, five-year-old Edward Stafford, to Richard Delabeare to keep until he sent for the boy. With them to Kynardsley went William Knyvet, who was married to Buckingham's aunt and who had also served as one of Buckingham's councilors. Buckingham had taken the precaution of having a frieze coat—-a coat of a coarse cloth that would not ordinarily have been suitable for a duke's child—made for his son. While the duke and duchess and their remaining son, Henry, were still at Weobley, members of the Vaughan family (not to be confused with the Vaughan who had died at Pontefract) seized Brecon Castle, looting its contents and doing historians a great disservice by destroying many of the Stafford records. Buckingham's young daughters and their ladies were taken to Tretower, the Vaughans' home. . . .

"With Buckingham dead, a search began for his wife and sons. Search parties failed to find young Edward, whose caretakers moved him from place to place and dressed him as a little gentlewoman (complete with shaven forehead) to avoid detection. Katherine and her other son, Henry, were found at Weobley by Wellesbourne, who with the brother of John Huddleston, probably Richard Huddleston (married to Queen Anne's half-sister, an out-of-wedlock child of the Earl of Warwick), took the duchess to the king in London.

"Katherine's status after she was brought to Richard III is unclear. Some writers have claimed that she was allowed to join her sister Elizabeth in sanctuary, but I have not found their source for this statement; as Richard III was trying to get Elizabeth out of sanctuary, it seems unlikely that he would have let yet another Woodville in. On December 19, 1483, however, Richard III did issue an order allowing the duchess to convey her children and servants from Wales to "these parts," meaning London, from where the order was issued.[41] Whether Katherine was staying on her own in London at the time or was living as a prisoner or under close supervision is unknown. Presumably the youthful fugitive Edward Stafford was included in this order and was brought out of hiding to join his mother and siblings.

"By April 1484, Richard III had granted Katherine an annuity of 200 marks to be paid to her out of the issues of Tonbridge.[42]"

I'm sure you're right, Marie, that Susan's source is the Farrar and Sutton article on Buckingham's sons from the Ricardian though she seems to have taken the story at face value as I assume the authors did not. Notice the absence of citations up to [41] and [42], which are both Horrox and Hammond citing the passage from Harleian 433 that you quoted, "Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."

Susan paraphrases this passage and comments in note 41, "Farrar and Sutton suggest that the children were taken into Richard III's or his queen's household, but the authors appear to have been unaware of the order allowing Katherine's servants and children to be brought to her in London."

Farrars and Sutton appear to be unaware of the passage in Harleian 433? Highly unlikely. It seems to me that Susan herself is misinterpreting it. She thinks that the Duchess has been found and brought to Richard in London and that she is somehow being allowed to "convey" her children and servants to London from Wales while she herself remains in London. But the passage does not say "have them conveyed." It states quite clearly that she will do the conveying herself, which she can only do if she is herself already in Wales. ("Convey" in the fifteenth century meant "to lead or conduct.")

All of which makes nonsense of the story that Buckingham brought his wife and sons with him to Weobley (would even Buckingham be that stupid?) and that the older boy was disguised as a girl, escaping the (imaginary) search parties, with Katherine and the other son found at Weobley (and "brought" to Richard) while the little girls were taken care of by the looting Vaughans.

What really happened, it seems quite clear, is that Katherine remained at Brecon with all of her children, including Edward, and that there were no search parties. She wrote to Richard asking and receiving permission to convey (personally) her children and servants, all of which had remained with her in Wales, to London, after which Richard granted her the pension of 200 pounds per year (which Susan criticizes as too small for Katherine's needs.)

With regard to Elizabeth de la Bere, all I could find is that she was born in 1455 (no death date) and was the second wife of Richard de la Bere of Kinnersely Castle and Clehonger Manor (ca. 1440-1514).

http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/trees/delabere.pdf (magnify to see).

Whether he was really a follower of Buckingham as the Tudor-based biography that someone (Sandra?) cited earlier indicates

http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/richard.html

or was pardoned for something else is still unclear. I can't access the passage in the History of Parliament that girders.com cited for his pardon.

I would guess that this charming little story is about as true as More's "Babes in the Tower" version of the "murder" of the "Princes," which is to say that it's made up from whole cloth (frieze, in this instance).

That's all I have unless Susan decides to answer my post, in which case I plan to mention that in order to "convey" her children from Wales, Katherine Stafford would have had to be present there herself.

Meanwhile, if anyone has a copy of the Farrars and Sutton article from the Ricardian and can upload it to our Files, I would be grateful.

Carol

Susan writes historical fiction. I suppose what I don't understand is why historical *fiction* can so easily become historical *fact* in readers' minds even when it's not presented as fact.

But then she goes and presents it as fact in her author's notes? I'd imagine she trusted her research regarding that detail.

So what is a writer -- any writer -- to do? Is it a case where many historians as well as historical fiction writers will never get it right, because they *can't* get it right? Because so many of the sources simply can't be trusted, and no matter how careful they are, untruths sneak in?

~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dorothea & Carol,
> >
> > Susan probably got this from an old Ricardian. The story comes from an Elizabethan document purporting to be a copy of an account written for Edward Stafford after he grew up by a lady who had helped to hide him. It is highly interesting but full of inaccuracies and puzzles. For instance, it claims that Buckingham hid his sons (aged 5 and 2!) because Richard had offered a reward for their capture - quite untrue. It ends just after Buckingham's execution with Edward Stafford being smuggled off to a woman in Hereford dressed as a girl and his mother, the Duchess of Buckingham, being arrested by "Sir John Hurleston's brother" and brought to London to King Richard.
> > In fact, Richard did not reach London until 26th November, three and a half weeks after Buckingham's death, and an item in Harley 433 indicates that the Duchess' removal to London happened several weeks later and was her own idea, and that she brought her children with her, viz:
> > "Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. I'd love to read that old article--which, I hope, treated the story with due skepticism. Unfortunately, Susan has expanded upon it in her novel and treated the source as legitimate in her notes. Pretty soon, it will become "fact." (According to Wikipedia, admittedly not the greatest source of information, Buckingham had *three* sons, all under the age of six. The idea that Richard would post a reward for their capture is just absurd.)
>
> Just checked the other forum. No answer yet from Susan.
>
> Carol
>

Well Sharon Penman gets it right - and when she changes it or doesn't know, she tells us.  I'm sure she can't be the only one who does it properly - surely?



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 18:31
Subject: Re: Buckingham's son disguised as a girl?

 
Susan writes historical fiction. I suppose what I don't understand is why historical *fiction* can so easily become historical *fact* in readers' minds even when it's not presented as fact.

But then she goes and presents it as fact in her author's notes? I'd imagine she trusted her research regarding that detail.

So what is a writer -- any writer -- to do? Is it a case where many historians as well as historical fiction writers will never get it right, because they *can't* get it right? Because so many of the sources simply can't be trusted, and no matter how careful they are, untruths sneak in?

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dorothea & Carol,
> >
> > Susan probably got this from an old Ricardian. The story comes from an Elizabethan document purporting to be a copy of an account written for Edward Stafford after he grew up by a lady who had helped to hide him. It is highly interesting but full of inaccuracies and puzzles. For instance, it claims that Buckingham hid his sons (aged 5 and 2!) because Richard had offered a reward for their capture - quite untrue. It ends just after Buckingham's execution with Edward Stafford being smuggled off to a woman in Hereford dressed as a girl and his mother, the Duchess of Buckingham, being arrested by "Sir John Hurleston's brother" and brought to London to King Richard.
> > In fact, Richard did not reach London until 26th November, three and a half weeks after Buckingham's death, and an item in Harley 433 indicates that the Duchess' removal to London happened several weeks later and was her own idea, and that she brought her children with her, viz:
> > "Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. I'd love to read that old article--which, I hope, treated the story with due skepticism. Unfortunately, Susan has expanded upon it in her novel and treated the source as legitimate in her notes. Pretty soon, it will become "fact." (According to Wikipedia, admittedly not the greatest source of information, Buckingham had *three* sons, all under the age of six. The idea that Richard would post a reward for their capture is just absurd.)
>
> Just checked the other forum. No answer yet from Susan.
>
> Carol
>

Hi Carol,

Unfortunately Farrar and Sutton took it too much at face value for my liking. There are just so many problems with the account as we have it:-
a) First, the identity of the supposed narrator isn't clear from the text.
b) There is a problem with the leading role of "Dame Elizabeth Delabeare" as she was not at that time married to Sir Richard Delabeare. In the text is claimed that she was at the time in question a servant in the Delabeare household, but I have an uneasy feeling about this. Is it possible that the person who dreamt up the story had it pointed out to her/him afterwards that Elizabeth Mores was not Lady Deleabeare at that time, and so added the words "being servant to Sir Richard Delabeare, knight" as a cover?
c) The names of many of the personnel have been corrupted. For instance, "Sir James Tyler" is almost certainly Sir James Tyrell - the only Sir James Tyler active during Buckingham's Rebellion came from Leicestershire and was one of the rebels. The man Susan names as the brother of John Huddlestone is actually named in the text as "Sir John Hurleston's brother". Now, "Sir John Hurleston" might mean Sir John Huddlestone, but are at least two other possibilities. One is a knight named John Harlewyn. Another possibility is that this man was actually Richard Harleston(e), the governor of Jersey, who was a supporter of Richard and held out against Henry VII's forces for several months after Bosworth; at any rate it seems that Richard Harlestone probably had a brother named John.
c) The detail of the frieze coat looks to me as though it may be anachronistic. I did a quick look-up of the word "frieze" online last night, and from what I saw it would appear that although the word existed in the 15th century in its other senses, it did not come to mean a type of cloth until the reign of Elizabeth I. PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY WITH ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE O.E.D. LOOK UP THE EARLIEST USES OF FRIEZE AS A TYPE OF CLOTH? Also, would a gown not have been more the thing in 1483 than a "coat/ cote"?
d) I can't see how Susan reconciles the entry in Harley 433 with the claim in this text that the Duchess was taken and brought to London by "Sir John Hurlestons brother". If she were being brought to London in custody, why on earth the need for the instruction to the King's officers not to interfere with her journey? Also, notice that Harley 433 says that she is coming from Wales (not Herefordshire, or even the Marches) with her children (not daughters) - but according to this story both her sons had been hidden.
e) Not only has the writer invented the rewards offered for little Edward and Henry Stafford, but he/she has also quadrupled the reward offered for Buckingham.
e) The language is very accessible, probably too accessible for something written as early as this account claims to have been.
f) Last but not least, the Edward Stafford in the story seems at times to be imagined as a toddler, who can be carried about all over the place in Lady Delabeare's arms, and at other times as a very much older child who for the journey to Hereford has his forehead shaved, "he rydinge behinde William ap Symon asyde upon a pillowe like a gentel woman, ridde in gentelwomans apperell, and I wisse he made the fearest gentelwoman and the best that ever she had in her daies or ever shall have...."
I once got the opinion of some US re-enactment riders as to whether a five-year-old could have made such a journey riding side-pillow, and the answer was a resounding no. No matter how early you start teaching children to ride, at that age they simply don't have the body weight to keep themselves on the horse if it does anything unexpected.

But I wouldn't dismiss this story as total Elizabethan invention out of thin air. Underneath the confused names it does seem to be referring to individuals who existed, and there is also reference in it to a raid on Brecknock Castle by the Vaughans of Tretower. The Crowland Chronicle doesn't say the Vaughans entered Brecknock in 1483 but does tell us that they helped Richard by keeping "a diligent watch over all the surrounding countryside", and also relates that after leaving Brecknock Buckingham and Morton stayed "at Weobley, at the home of Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers." Ferrers must have been either absent or forced to give them houseroom as this was clearly no secret and Richard seemed to believe Ferrers was on his side. We do know, however, that the Vaughans sacked Brecknock Castle in the spring of 1486 - the indictment is extant although I don't think it's been published. Also, amongst all the hyperbole regarding the rewards for Buckingham and his sons, the story gets the right figure for the reward offered for Sir William Knyvet.
Anyway, I'm inclined to think this story may have been built up from bits and pieces of genuine documentary information, in order to invent a role for the Delabeares in opposing Richard III.

Marie


The refer to her as a servant in the Delabeare house at the time,


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > Thanks, Marie. I'd love to read that old article--which, I hope, treated the story with due skepticism. Unfortunately, Susan has expanded upon it in her novel and treated the source as legitimate in her notes. Pretty soon, it will become "fact." (According to Wikipedia, admittedly not the greatest source of information, Buckingham had *three* sons, all under the age of six. The idea that Richard would post a reward for their capture is just absurd.)
> >
> > Just checked the other forum. No answer yet from Susan.
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Since Susan shows no signs of responding, I'll quote what she wrote in another blog (which, aside from a few sneers at Richard, is reasonably informative and objective up to this point though some of her sources are questionable):
>
> "Leaving his daughters at his castle of Brecon in Wales, he went with his wife and sons to Weobley in Herefordshire, where Sir Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers had a home. Lord Ferrers' role in this episode is a mystery. He was not named as being a rebel, and later fought and died for Richard III at Bosworth, but he had sheltered the young Henry Tudor in 1470 when the boy was in the care of Anne, Countess of Pembroke, Walter's sister . . . . Perhaps Ferrers was an unwilling or absent host; perhaps the presence of the duchess and the couple's small sons allowed him to tell Richard later that he had acted merely out of consideration for their plight.
>
> "Katherine's presence at Weobley with her husband and sons raises its own questions. If she really were the despised wife that Mancini describes, would Harry have brought her along for his last, doomed stand before he took to flight? Katherine's brothers Lionel and Richard had also joined the rebellion; perhaps Katherine played a role in contacting them once Harry decided to throw his lot in with the rebels.
>
> "After spending a week speaking to the local men, presumably in a fruitless attempt to gain support, Buckingham—now with a reward of a thousand pounds on his head— disguised himself and fled, leaving what was left of his army behind. Before this, according to a memoir by a family retainer,[35] he entrusted his heir, five-year-old Edward Stafford, to Richard Delabeare to keep until he sent for the boy. With them to Kynardsley went William Knyvet, who was married to Buckingham's aunt and who had also served as one of Buckingham's councilors. Buckingham had taken the precaution of having a frieze coat—-a coat of a coarse cloth that would not ordinarily have been suitable for a duke's child—made for his son. While the duke and duchess and their remaining son, Henry, were still at Weobley, members of the Vaughan family (not to be confused with the Vaughan who had died at Pontefract) seized Brecon Castle, looting its contents and doing historians a great disservice by destroying many of the Stafford records. Buckingham's young daughters and their ladies were taken to Tretower, the Vaughans' home. . . .
>
> "With Buckingham dead, a search began for his wife and sons. Search parties failed to find young Edward, whose caretakers moved him from place to place and dressed him as a little gentlewoman (complete with shaven forehead) to avoid detection. Katherine and her other son, Henry, were found at Weobley by Wellesbourne, who with the brother of John Huddleston, probably Richard Huddleston (married to Queen Anne's half-sister, an out-of-wedlock child of the Earl of Warwick), took the duchess to the king in London.
>
> "Katherine's status after she was brought to Richard III is unclear. Some writers have claimed that she was allowed to join her sister Elizabeth in sanctuary, but I have not found their source for this statement; as Richard III was trying to get Elizabeth out of sanctuary, it seems unlikely that he would have let yet another Woodville in. On December 19, 1483, however, Richard III did issue an order allowing the duchess to convey her children and servants from Wales to "these parts," meaning London, from where the order was issued.[41] Whether Katherine was staying on her own in London at the time or was living as a prisoner or under close supervision is unknown. Presumably the youthful fugitive Edward Stafford was included in this order and was brought out of hiding to join his mother and siblings.
>
> "By April 1484, Richard III had granted Katherine an annuity of 200 marks to be paid to her out of the issues of Tonbridge.[42]"
>
> I'm sure you're right, Marie, that Susan's source is the Farrar and Sutton article on Buckingham's sons from the Ricardian though she seems to have taken the story at face value as I assume the authors did not. Notice the absence of citations up to [41] and [42], which are both Horrox and Hammond citing the passage from Harleian 433 that you quoted, "Duchess of Buckingham. A commission to all mayors, sheriffs, escheators, bailiffs, constables and all other officers, as well within England as Wales, to suffer the Duchess of Buckingham to convey her children & servants from Wales to these parts. Given at London the 19 day of December anno primo."
>
> Susan paraphrases this passage and comments in note 41, "Farrar and Sutton suggest that the children were taken into Richard III's or his queen's household, but the authors appear to have been unaware of the order allowing Katherine's servants and children to be brought to her in London."
>
> Farrars and Sutton appear to be unaware of the passage in Harleian 433? Highly unlikely. It seems to me that Susan herself is misinterpreting it. She thinks that the Duchess has been found and brought to Richard in London and that she is somehow being allowed to "convey" her children and servants to London from Wales while she herself remains in London. But the passage does not say "have them conveyed." It states quite clearly that she will do the conveying herself, which she can only do if she is herself already in Wales. ("Convey" in the fifteenth century meant "to lead or conduct.")
>
> All of which makes nonsense of the story that Buckingham brought his wife and sons with him to Weobley (would even Buckingham be that stupid?) and that the older boy was disguised as a girl, escaping the (imaginary) search parties, with Katherine and the other son found at Weobley (and "brought" to Richard) while the little girls were taken care of by the looting Vaughans.
>
> What really happened, it seems quite clear, is that Katherine remained at Brecon with all of her children, including Edward, and that there were no search parties. She wrote to Richard asking and receiving permission to convey (personally) her children and servants, all of which had remained with her in Wales, to London, after which Richard granted her the pension of 200 pounds per year (which Susan criticizes as too small for Katherine's needs.)
>
> With regard to Elizabeth de la Bere, all I could find is that she was born in 1455 (no death date) and was the second wife of Richard de la Bere of Kinnersely Castle and Clehonger Manor (ca. 1440-1514).
>
> http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/trees/delabere.pdf (magnify to see).
>
> Whether he was really a follower of Buckingham as the Tudor-based biography that someone (Sandra?) cited earlier indicates
>
> http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/richard.html
>
> or was pardoned for something else is still unclear. I can't access the passage in the History of Parliament that girders.com cited for his pardon.
>
> I would guess that this charming little story is about as true as More's "Babes in the Tower" version of the "murder" of the "Princes," which is to say that it's made up from whole cloth (frieze, in this instance).
>
> That's all I have unless Susan decides to answer my post, in which case I plan to mention that in order to "convey" her children from Wales, Katherine Stafford would have had to be present there herself.
>
> Meanwhile, if anyone has a copy of the Farrars and Sutton article from the Ricardian and can upload it to our Files, I would be grateful.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Susan writes historical fiction. I suppose what I don't understand is why historical *fiction* can so easily become historical *fact* in readers' minds even when it's not presented as fact.
>
> But then she goes and presents it as fact in her author's notes? I'd imagine she trusted her research regarding that detail.

Carol responds:

And not only her notes but her blog as well. See the post where I quote the blog version of this "incident."

Weds:

> So what is a writer -- any writer -- to do? Is it a case where many historians as well as historical fiction writers will never get it right, because they *can't* get it right? Because so many of the sources simply can't be trusted, and no matter how careful they are, untruths sneak in?

Carol responds:

For one thing, don't have loaded study questions at the end of the book as Higginbotham does--readers may mistake the characters as the author presents them for the historical figures they ostensibly represent. For another, be honest about using and further fictionalizing questionable sources--like this manuscript, apparently from the Elizabethan era, posing as a true event as depicted by Elizabeth de la Bere. If it's not in Croyland or even Vergil, and it isn't, the story is probably a later invention.

We can't get everything right, but we don't need to make matters worse by putting Ricardian articles to bad purpose. (I think that Susan likes the story and therefore believes it, but if she'd look at the wording of the Harleian 433 paragraph--Permission to *convey* them from Wales--she would, I hope, realize that Katherine herself (and her sons) had to be *in Wales*, not in London, to do so. The whole story is improbable to begin with, the source is questionable at best, yet she uses it, anyway, to make it look as if Richard would send out search warrants for an innocent woman and her five-and-a-half-year-old son. A child killer, you know. Can't put anything past the wicked tyrant after all his other "heinous" deeds.

Sorry. I'm not being objective, I know, but this particular abuse of an author's privilege irks me, especially when her blogs with all their footnotes (all of secondary sources, BTW) *look* so impressively researched. She's an intelligent and articulate woman. That's what makes he so scary.

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> Unfortunately Farrar and Sutton took it too much at face value for my liking. There are just so many problems with the account as we have it:-
> a) First, the identity of the supposed narrator isn't clear from the text.
> b) There is a problem with the leading role of "Dame Elizabeth Delabeare" as she was not at that time married to Sir Richard Delabeare. In the text is claimed that she was at the time in question a servant in the Delabeare household, but I have an uneasy feeling about this. Is it possible that the person who dreamt up the story had it pointed out to her/him afterwards that Elizabeth Mores was not Lady Deleabeare at that time, and so added the words "being servant to Sir Richard Delabeare, knight" as a cover?
> c) The names of many of the personnel have been corrupted. For instance, "Sir James Tyler" is almost certainly Sir James Tyrell - the only Sir James Tyler active during Buckingham's Rebellion came from Leicestershire and was one of the rebels. The man Susan names as the brother of John Huddlestone is actually named in the text as "Sir John Hurleston's brother". Now, "Sir John Hurleston" might mean Sir John Huddlestone, but are at least two other possibilities. One is a knight named John Harlewyn. Another possibility is that this man was actually Richard Harleston(e), the governor of Jersey, who was a supporter of Richard and held out against Henry VII's forces for several months after Bosworth; at any rate it seems that Richard Harlestone probably had a brother named John.
> c) The detail of the frieze coat looks to me as though it may be anachronistic. I did a quick look-up of the word "frieze" online last night, and from what I saw it would appear that although the word existed in the 15th century in its other senses, it did not come to mean a type of cloth until the reign of Elizabeth I. PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY WITH ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE O.E.D. LOOK UP THE EARLIEST USES OF FRIEZE AS A TYPE OF CLOTH? Also, would a gown not have been more the thing in 1483 than a "coat/ cote"?
> d) I can't see how Susan reconciles the entry in Harley 433 with the claim in this text that the Duchess was taken and brought to London by "Sir John Hurlestons brother". If she were being brought to London in custody, why on earth the need for the instruction to the King's officers not to interfere with her journey? Also, notice that Harley 433 says that she is coming from Wales (not Herefordshire, or even the Marches) with her children (not daughters) - but according to this story both her sons had been hidden.
> e) Not only has the writer invented the rewards offered for little Edward and Henry Stafford, but he/she has also quadrupled the reward offered for Buckingham.
> e) The language is very accessible, probably too accessible for something written as early as this account claims to have been.
> f) Last but not least, the Edward Stafford in the story seems at times to be imagined as a toddler, who can be carried about all over the place in Lady Delabeare's arms, and at other times as a very much older child who for the journey to Hereford has his forehead shaved, "he rydinge behinde William ap Symon asyde upon a pillowe like a gentel woman, ridde in gentelwomans apperell, and I wisse he made the fearest gentelwoman and the best that ever she had in her daies or ever shall have...."
> I once got the opinion of some US re-enactment riders as to whether a five-year-old could have made such a journey riding side-pillow, and the answer was a resounding no. No matter how early you start teaching children to ride, at that age they simply don't have the body weight to keep themselves on the horse if it does anything unexpected.
>
> But I wouldn't dismiss this story as total Elizabethan invention out of thin air. Underneath the confused names it does seem to be referring to individuals who existed, and there is also reference in it to a raid on Brecknock Castle by the Vaughans of Tretower. The Crowland Chronicle doesn't say the Vaughans entered Brecknock in 1483 but does tell us that they helped Richard by keeping "a diligent watch over all the surrounding countryside", and also relates that after leaving Brecknock Buckingham and Morton stayed "at Weobley, at the home of Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers." Ferrers must have been either absent or forced to give them houseroom as this was clearly no secret and Richard seemed to believe Ferrers was on his side. We do know, however, that the Vaughans sacked Brecknock Castle in the spring of 1486 - the indictment is extant although I don't think it's been published. Also, amongst all the hyperbole regarding the rewards for Buckingham and his sons, the story gets the right figure for the reward offered for Sir William Knyvet.
> Anyway, I'm inclined to think this story may have been built up from bits and pieces of genuine documentary information, in order to invent a role for the Delabeares in opposing Richard III.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I don't know who Farrar is, but surprised, even shocked, that Anne Sutton would take this manuscript seriously. It seems as if a belated reply is in order. I would do it in a heartbeat if I had access to the needed materials, including the Ricardian article, but I don't. May I use some of your facts, such as the date of the Vaughans' raid on Brecknock and the invented rewards, if Susan replies to my post on the other site? I've already noted (here and on the other forum) that Harleian 433 has Katherine coming from Wales (otherwise, it would be impossible to "convey" the children and servants). I did note but did not mention "children," not "daughters."

As you say, the whole story seems to have been concocted long after 1483 from bits and pieces (possibly including the story that a different Edward was sent away for safety) to make the de la Beres look important (at least from the Stafford perspective!) If only we knew when Elizabeth de la Bere died. Katherine, who could have dismissed the story as an improbable fantasy, died in 1497 when her son was 21, and Edward himself, who would surely have remembered having his forehead shaved and having to dress as a girl--five-year-olds remember traumatic or humiliating events and retain those memories as adults--was executed in 1521. Susan says that the story was found with his papers, but it might have been mixed with the papers of a later Stafford. The family was prolific!

I have an idea--let's write a novel in which eight-year-old Richard and eleven-year-old George are disguised as girls and shipped to Burgundy! Never mind. Let's not. That disguise might become "fact," too.

Carol