Re: Edward's paternity

Ann wrote: Of course, the business of this site is to
sell DNA test kits, including paternity testing, but
we can always exhume everyone involved:

http://www.genetree.com/about/conception-calculator.asp

to contribute to the discussion of whether Richard D
of Y arrived at Rouen in good time or not.


***

If the Italians are willing to do a study of the
Medici family, it's not impossible that the English
would be willing to do a study of the Plantagenets.

If that doesn't work out, maybe a descendant of Sir
Robert Brakenbury's super-athletic priest would
volunteer for whoever is willing to invest in the DNA
kits.

On a more serious note, I've just read in P.A.
Johnson's "Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460" that York
intended for Edward to inherit all of [York's] estates
intact. After his efforts to make Edmund a French
landowner failed in 1450, "...York devised no other
settlement for Edmund, nor for his younger brothers."
(p. 14)

That doesn't sound as if York doubted that Edward was
his own son. Or else he accepted Edward as his own
son, regardless of who the father really was.

Here's something that I haven't heard or read before:

"...it is worth noting that Duke Richard was not able
to place his sons for training in other baronial
households, as was customary. They stayed at home and
were bullied by the Croft children." The source for
this statement is C.D. Ross, Edward IV (1974), P. 436.

That surprises me. Can anyone add more? Why couldn't
York place Edward and Edmund in other households?
(Wouldn't George and Richard be too young in 1455?)
Who were the Croft children? And how could they get
away with bullying a duke's sons?

TIA!

Marion








__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

> On a more serious note, I've just read in P.A.
> Johnson's "Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460" that York
> intended for Edward to inherit all of [York's] estates
> intact. After his efforts to make Edmund a French
> landowner failed in 1450, "...York devised no other
> settlement for Edmund, nor for his younger brothers."
> (p. 14)
>
> That doesn't sound as if York doubted that Edward was
> his own son. Or else he accepted Edward as his own
> son, regardless of who the father really was.
>
Good point.

> Here's something that I haven't heard or read before:
>
> "...it is worth noting that Duke Richard was not able
> to place his sons for training in other baronial
> households, as was customary. They stayed at home and
> were bullied by the Croft children." The source for
> this statement is C.D. Ross, Edward IV (1974), P. 436.
>
> That surprises me. Can anyone add more? Why couldn't
> York place Edward and Edmund in other households?
> (Wouldn't George and Richard be too young in 1455?)
> Who were the Croft children? And how could they get
> away with bullying a duke's sons?

Richard was born on 2nd October 1455 and so would have been too young
to go to another household. Clarence was born in October 1449 so also
a bit young, as seven seems to have been the traditional age.

I can't see any reason why the Duke of York should have been 'unable'
to place his sons in other households, as distinct from unwilling,
unless it had something to do with the tangled politics of the time.
However, the politics only became really tangled from 1453 onwards,
when Edward and Edmund already had their own establishment at Ludlow.
After all, exchanging sons was an important means of cementing ties
between families.

I've never heard of the Croft children. On the bullying point, I
suppose in those days the view might well be taken that dukes' sons
must learn to fight their own battles.

Ann

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Ann wrote: Of course, the business of this site is to
> sell DNA test kits, including paternity testing, but
> we can always exhume everyone involved:
>
> http://www.genetree.com/about/conception-calculator.asp
>
> to contribute to the discussion of whether Richard D
> of Y arrived at Rouen in good time or not.
>
>
> ***
>
> If the Italians are willing to do a study of the
> Medici family, it's not impossible that the English
> would be willing to do a study of the Plantagenets.
>
> If that doesn't work out, maybe a descendant of Sir
> Robert Brakenbury's super-athletic priest would
> volunteer for whoever is willing to invest in the DNA
> kits.
>
> On a more serious note, I've just read in P.A.
> Johnson's "Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460" that York
> intended for Edward to inherit all of [York's] estates
> intact. After his efforts to make Edmund a French
> landowner failed in 1450, "...York devised no other
> settlement for Edmund, nor for his younger brothers."
> (p. 14)
>
> That doesn't sound as if York doubted that Edward was
> his own son. Or else he accepted Edward as his own
> son, regardless of who the father really was.

I think he must have accepted Edward as his son, as he couldn't prove
otherwise. However, Johnson may be overegging the pudding when he
uses the word "intended". It is also the case that York made none of
the usual jointure arrangements for Cecily, so that when he was
attainted in 1459 she was left totally destitute. Perhaps he was just
neglectful in this way, or perhaps it was all to do with his constant
lack of funds. He had had to pretty well finance his administration
of Normandy and Ireland himself and was always broke, so may have put
off alienating lands. I expect he hoped for a good heiress for
Edmund, which would have saved him from having to split the estates,
thereby weakening the family power-base. Evidently, Edmund hadn't
married by 17, but for that see below.



>
> Here's something that I haven't heard or read before:
>
> "...it is worth noting that Duke Richard was not able
> to place his sons for training in other baronial
> households, as was customary. They stayed at home and
> were bullied by the Croft children." The source for
> this statement is C.D. Ross, Edward IV (1974), P. 436.
>
> That surprises me. Can anyone add more? Why couldn't
> York place Edward and Edmund in other households?
> (Wouldn't George and Richard be too young in 1455?)
> Who were the Croft children? And how could they get
> away with bullying a duke's sons?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion


I don't know again whether I accept Johnson's interpretation of
York's reasons for setting up his "big boys' household" at Ludlow. He
is right that it probably would have been difficult for him to place
Edward and Edmund during the 1450s, other than with the Nevilles,
perhaps (several of the families at the top of the court struggle,
for instance, never managed to get brides for their sons). But then I
get the impression that, Richard of Gloucester aside and there are
other reasons for his placement with Warwick, people normally sought
to place their offspring in the household of someone with more clout
than themselves, so I'm not sure that someone in Yyork's position
would have been expected to send his sons out. I feel the Ludlow
household was probably set up for the same reason that Edward IV
later sent his son there, and the same reason Richard set up the
Sheriff Hutton household when he was King. The bulk of York's estates
were in Wales and the Marches, and he had spent a lot of time there
when he first got livery of them. However, probably for political
reasons, he had based himself since almost entirely in eastern
England (when he wasn't actually abroad), so he probably thought it
was a good idea to set up his son and heir & spare on his western
estates to maintain his influence there with the local gentry.

Which brings me neatly to the Crofts. Johnson is referring to a
letter written by Edward & Edmund to their father, in 1454 I think,
complaining about "the odious rule and demeaning of Richard Croft and
his brother". It used to be supposed that Croft was their tutor, but
the latest word seems to be that these were boys placed in the
household for training.
The Crofts belonged to Croft Castle, right by Mortimer's Cross.
Richard Croft's brother was named Thomas. Richard, later Sir Richard,
Croft fought at Mortimer's Cross and Towton and stayed in Edward's
service, so they seem to have got on all right in the long run.

I thought I had the text of this letter somewhere, but I'm having
trouble putting my hands on it at the moment. I'll keep looking.

Marie


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Ann wrote: I can't see any reason why the Duke of
York should have been 'unable' to place his sons in
other households, as distinct from unwilling, unless
it had something to do with the tangled politics of
the time. However the politics only became really
tangled from 1453 onwards.

***

I've only reached Oct. 1452 in the book. So far the
politics are tangled enough to make me feel as if I'm
missing things, even though I'm reading as carefully
as I can. P.A. Johnson goes into great detail on
finances, genealogy and anything that can be quoted
from a document. But there are so many figures and so
many names that I'm finding it hard to absorb it all.

If politics are going to become more tangled through
the rest of the book, I've got a challenging read
ahead.

***

On the bullying point, I suppose in those days the
view might well be taken that dukes' sons must learn
to fight their own battles.

***

That makes sense.

But I was thinking that the system would have
discouraged boys of lower rank from bullying boys of
higher rank. After all the lower ranked boys would
depend on the higher ranked boys for patronage when
they became men. Maybe boys that age didn't think
that far ahead, but I thought the adults would have
trained them to think that way.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Marie wrote: "... York made none of the usual
jointure arrangements for Cecily, so that when he was
attainted in 1459 she was left totally destitute.
Perhaps he was just neglectful in this way, or perhaps
it was all to do with his constant lack of funds."

***

Another thing P.A. Johnson says is: "For the most
part, after 1455 York "did not attract the services of
high-calibre men, and it is likely that he was
dependent on minor genry for his household staff."
(p. 19)

I'm not sure if this covers the staff that handled his
finances or not. The failure of Henry VI's exchequer
to pay for much of York's service in France and
Ireland left York in trouble. So far, Johnson hasn't
mentioned any extravagance on Cecily's part or any
incompetence or theft on the part of York's staff.
Johnson has mentioned several legal battles that York
lost, which probably added to his financial problems.

I haven't yet got a feel for how York's financial
troubles compared to other dukes'. Johnson has said
that Henry VI's exchequer worked slowly, but hasn't
said how that affected others in comparison to York.

It's hard to say if York was neglectful. He seems to
have been overloaded with responsibilities for which
he wasn't being paid by Henry VI's exchequer. Maybe
York should have put more effort into protecting his
family's interests and less into his public
responsibilities. But I'm not sure of that. More
reading may help me to decide.

***

Marie: (several of the families at the top of the
court struggle, for instance, never managed to get
brides for their sons)

***

I didn't realize that. Would that have added to the
problem of families dying out for lack of male heirs?

Was it so dangerous to marry into some families that
parents of elegible daughters refused to allow them to
marry those sons?

Or was it so important to make a good financial
marriage that the sons' families thought it was better
for them to remain unmarried than to marry a wife who
had a small dowry?

***

Marie: Johnson is referring to a letter written by
Edward & Edmund to their father ... I thought I had
the text of this letter somewhere, but I'm having
trouble putting my hands on it at the moment. I'll
keep looking.

***

I've had that experience. The source you need goes
invisible just when you want to quote it. <g>

I remember you mentioned letters from Edward & Edmund
to their father in an earlier post. I haven't seen
them quoted in any of my reading so far, and I'd
appreciate anything you can share when you find it.

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

>
> On the bullying point, I suppose in those days the
> view might well be taken that dukes' sons must learn
> to fight their own battles.
>
> ***
>
> That makes sense.
>
> But I was thinking that the system would have
> discouraged boys of lower rank from bullying boys of
> higher rank. After all the lower ranked boys would
> depend on the higher ranked boys for patronage when
> they became men. Maybe boys that age didn't think
> that far ahead, but I thought the adults would have
> trained them to think that way.
>

Marion

We can, of course, argue this a number of ways, but George V is
reported as saying of his days aboard the naval training ship, HMS
Britannia, which he joined when he was about 13, 'It never did me any
good to be a prince,' because all the others took advantage of the
only opportunity they would ever have to beat up a prince, and
matters were made worse by his being very small for his age.

Of course, 15th century adults might try to persuade the boys that
knocking dukes' sons about would not help their future careers, but
would the boys listen? Bear in mind that we are dealing with a very
macho environment, in which physical toughness would count for a
great deal.

Ann

>
> I haven't yet got a feel for how York's financial
> troubles compared to other dukes'.

Marion

I remember reading somewhere (as usual I can't remember where) that
the 2nd and 3rd Dukes of Somerset were very badly off, since
virtually all the family lands went to Margaret Beaufort (sole
heiress of the 1st Duke) as they were not entailed in tail male,
which would have meant that they passed with the title. The 4th Duke,
being under attainder and in exile by the time he inherited from his
brother (technically he didn't inherit the title at all, because of
his brother's 1464 attainder), was very definitely on his financial
uppers, and it is written somewhere that at one stage he was reduced
to begging in Flanders, a position from which he was rescued when
Charles the Bold gave him a 'modest' pension.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't yet got a feel for how York's financial
> > troubles compared to other dukes'.
>
> Marion
>
> I remember reading somewhere (as usual I can't remember where) that
> the 2nd and 3rd Dukes of Somerset were very badly off, since
> virtually all the family lands went to Margaret Beaufort (sole
> heiress of the 1st Duke) as they were not entailed in tail male,
> which would have meant that they passed with the title.

Yes, I think that's right, and it wouldn't have helped the third
duke's sons in the marriage market. My impression is that 3rd Duke,
Edmund, (killed at St Albans 1455) maintained his lifestyle out of
the perks of his offices - a very clear contrast to the position with
York, whose offices were actually draining his resources. So my
impression is that the court favourites made sure they were paid, and
blow everybody else.
However, I imagine that, had the poliitical situation been more
stable, Duke Edmund would have been able to marry of his sons. He
married off a large brood of daughters, and of course he himself had
found a bride, a daughter of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. She
was a half-sister of Warwick's wife Anne Beauchamp. Now, since Anne
was the full sister of the last male holder of the Warewick title
(Duke Henry, died young), she inherited despite the fact that she was
the youngest (some arcane rule called the Exclusion of the Half-
blood, apparently). However, not surprisingly the land-hungry Duke
Edmund claimed the earldom of Warwick for his own wife. This was
probably what brought the Nevilles in on York's side, and probably
explains how Duke Edmund ended up dead in Warwick's charge at St
Albans, even though the total casualties were miniscule.

None of Duke Edmund's sons ever did marry, I'm pretty sure. People
must have seen that the world couldn't go on holding both York and
the Beauforts, so marrying your daughters into either family would be
like playing Russian roulette.



The 4th Duke,
> being under attainder and in exile by the time he inherited from
his
> brother (technically he didn't inherit the title at all, because of
> his brother's 1464 attainder), was very definitely on his financial
> uppers, and it is written somewhere that at one stage he was
reduced
> to begging in Flanders, a position from which he was rescued when
> Charles the Bold gave him a 'modest' pension.

The Lancastrian lord who was actually seen begging was the Duke of
Exeter. Of course none of them had any money because they were under
attainder, their estates confiscated, and they were in exile. Exeter
and Somerset were both given pensions by Burgundy and lived together
in Bruges (how sweet!).
I have my doubts about 4th Duke of Somerset's sexuality, actually,
although he did father one illegitimate child. His relationship with
Exeter (who didn't get on with his wife) was always very close, there
is no evidence that he looked for a bride after his father's death,
in Burgundy he struck up a close friendship with Charolais (one of
whose bastard brothers said he tried to have sex with him), and he
was the one who shared a bed with Edward IV during his brief period
as a good Yorkist.

Marie

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

> >
> > I remember reading somewhere (as usual I can't remember where)
that
> > the 2nd and 3rd Dukes of Somerset were very badly off, since
> > virtually all the family lands went to Margaret Beaufort (sole
> > heiress of the 1st Duke) as they were not entailed in tail male,
> > which would have meant that they passed with the title.
>
> Yes, I think that's right, and it wouldn't have helped the third
> duke's sons in the marriage market. My impression is that 3rd Duke,
> Edmund, (killed at St Albans 1455) maintained his lifestyle out of
> the perks of his offices - a very clear contrast to the position
with
> York, whose offices were actually draining his resources. So my
> impression is that the court favourites made sure they were paid,
and
> blow everybody else.
> However, I imagine that, had the poliitical situation been more
> stable, Duke Edmund would have been able to marry of his sons. He
> married off a large brood of daughters, and of course he himself
had
> found a bride, a daughter of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. She
> was a half-sister of Warwick's wife Anne Beauchamp. Now, since Anne
> was the full sister of the last male holder of the Warewick title
> (Duke Henry, died young), she inherited despite the fact that she
was
> the youngest (some arcane rule called the Exclusion of the Half-
> blood, apparently).

Not as arcane as all that, in fact, as the modern (1925) Rules of
Intestacy still give siblings of the whole blood priority over those
of the half blood. I.e. if my eldest paternal aunt (now 95 and in a
nursing home) were to die intestate (I understand she has made a
will, in fact), her heirs would be her nephew and niece of the whole
blood (she has never married and has no children,her parents are both
dead, her brother and sister of the whole blood are both dead, one
leaving issue), although she has a brother and sister of the half
blood living). Had Henry, Duke of Warwick never existed, his father's
heirs would have been his four daughters as co-parceners (technical
legal term) and the fact that they came from two marriages was
irrelevant.

>
> None of Duke Edmund's sons ever did marry, I'm pretty sure.

I have never heard of any of them marrying.>
>
>
> The 4th Duke,
> > being under attainder and in exile by the time he inherited from
> his
> > brother (technically he didn't inherit the title at all, because
of
> > his brother's 1464 attainder), was very definitely on his
financial
> > uppers, and it is written somewhere that at one stage he was
> reduced
> > to begging in Flanders, a position from which he was rescued when
> > Charles the Bold gave him a 'modest' pension.
>
> The Lancastrian lord who was actually seen begging was the Duke of
> Exeter. Of course none of them had any money because they were
under
> attainder, their estates confiscated, and they were in exile.
Exeter
> and Somerset were both given pensions by Burgundy and lived
together
> in Bruges (how sweet!).
> I have my doubts about 4th Duke of Somerset's sexuality, actually,
> although he did father one illegitimate child. His relationship
with
> Exeter (who didn't get on with his wife) was always very close,
there
> is no evidence that he looked for a bride after his father's death,
> in Burgundy he struck up a close friendship with Charolais (one of
> whose bastard brothers said he tried to have sex with him), and he
> was the one who shared a bed with Edward IV during his brief period
> as a good Yorkist.

I wonder if we are in danger of getting confused between our Dukes of
Somerset. The 4th Duke I was thinking of was Edmund (killed 1471). It
was Henry (3rd Duke) who had an illegitimate son (Charles Somerset,
ancestor of the Dukes of Beaufort - perhaps he was named after
Charolais as Charles was an unusual name in England at that time) and
shared a bed with Edward IV (though nobody except Julian Rathbone has
suggested that Edward IV had homosexual tendencies).

Jasper Tudor is another prominent figure of this period who did not
marry (at least at the time when one might expect - he did marry one
of the Woodvilles, but only after 1485).

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I remember reading somewhere (as usual I can't remember where)
> that
> > > the 2nd and 3rd Dukes of Somerset were very badly off, since
> > > virtually all the family lands went to Margaret Beaufort (sole
> > > heiress of the 1st Duke) as they were not entailed in tail
male,
> > > which would have meant that they passed with the title.
> >
> > Yes, I think that's right, and it wouldn't have helped the third
> > duke's sons in the marriage market. My impression is that 3rd
Duke,
> > Edmund, (killed at St Albans 1455) maintained his lifestyle out
of
> > the perks of his offices - a very clear contrast to the position
> with
> > York, whose offices were actually draining his resources. So my
> > impression is that the court favourites made sure they were paid,
> and
> > blow everybody else.
> > However, I imagine that, had the poliitical situation been more
> > stable, Duke Edmund would have been able to marry of his sons. He
> > married off a large brood of daughters, and of course he himself
> had
> > found a bride, a daughter of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick.
She
> > was a half-sister of Warwick's wife Anne Beauchamp. Now, since
Anne
> > was the full sister of the last male holder of the Warewick title
> > (Duke Henry, died young), she inherited despite the fact that she
> was
> > the youngest (some arcane rule called the Exclusion of the Half-
> > blood, apparently).
>
> Not as arcane as all that, in fact, as the modern (1925) Rules of
> Intestacy still give siblings of the whole blood priority over
those
> of the half blood. I.e. if my eldest paternal aunt (now 95 and in a
> nursing home) were to die intestate (I understand she has made a
> will, in fact), her heirs would be her nephew and niece of the
whole
> blood (she has never married and has no children,her parents are
both
> dead, her brother and sister of the whole blood are both dead, one
> leaving issue), although she has a brother and sister of the half
> blood living). Had Henry, Duke of Warwick never existed, his
father's
> heirs would have been his four daughters as co-parceners (technical
> legal term) and the fact that they came from two marriages was
> irrelevant.
>
> >
> > None of Duke Edmund's sons ever did marry, I'm pretty sure.
>
> I have never heard of any of them marrying.>
> >
> >
> > The 4th Duke,
> > > being under attainder and in exile by the time he inherited
from
> > his
> > > brother (technically he didn't inherit the title at all,
because
> of
> > > his brother's 1464 attainder), was very definitely on his
> financial
> > > uppers, and it is written somewhere that at one stage he was
> > reduced
> > > to begging in Flanders, a position from which he was rescued
when
> > > Charles the Bold gave him a 'modest' pension.
> >
> > The Lancastrian lord who was actually seen begging was the Duke
of
> > Exeter. Of course none of them had any money because they were
> under
> > attainder, their estates confiscated, and they were in exile.
> Exeter
> > and Somerset were both given pensions by Burgundy and lived
> together
> > in Bruges (how sweet!).
> > I have my doubts about 4th Duke of Somerset's sexuality,
actually,
> > although he did father one illegitimate child. His relationship
> with
> > Exeter (who didn't get on with his wife) was always very close,
> there
> > is no evidence that he looked for a bride after his father's
death,
> > in Burgundy he struck up a close friendship with Charolais (one
of
> > whose bastard brothers said he tried to have sex with him), and
he
> > was the one who shared a bed with Edward IV during his brief
period
> > as a good Yorkist.
>
> I wonder if we are in danger of getting confused between our Dukes
of
> Somerset. The 4th Duke I was thinking of was Edmund (killed 1471).
It
> was Henry (3rd Duke) who had an illegitimate son (Charles Somerset,
> ancestor of the Dukes of Beaufort - perhaps he was named after
> Charolais as Charles was an unusual name in England at that time)
and
> shared a bed with Edward IV (though nobody except Julian Rathbone
has
> suggested that Edward IV had homosexual tendencies).

Yes, I think I probably am getting muddled. I always thought Edmund
(d. 1455) was 2nd duke, but my tree which I consulted told me
otherwise; sorry for the confusion. So it is Edmund died 1455 2nd
duke, Henry 3rd duke who had illegit child (Sir Charles) and slept
with Edward IV. Jonathan Hughes (I nearly wrote Jonathon Ross!) has
also recently queried whether Edward might not have dabbled with both
types of sex. He quotes the Somerset thing in evidence and notes that
the alchemical lot were into dualism, according to which God, and
therefore the perfect person, includes both the male and the female;
if Edward did try homosexual sex in the cause of dualistic beliefs he
wouldn't have been the first - or the last. However, I'd developed my
theory about Somerset more by studying him in his own right and
hadn't read any of these suggestions about Edward at the time.
I also think Sir Charles Somerset was probably named after Charolais;
perhaps Somerset lay back and thought of Burgundy.
>
> Jasper Tudor is another prominent figure of this period who did not
> marry (at least at the time when one might expect - he did marry
one
> of the Woodvilles, but only after 1485).

That's right. Edmund of course got Margaret Beaufort, but only after
Queen Margaret had wrested her off her childhood bridegroom John Duke
of Suffolk - all in the cause of winning over the Tudors to her side
as they'd been rather matey with York up to that point. In the same
cause she also sacrificed her bastard cousin Marie of Maine (who had
come over from France with her to be maid in waiting) to the Earl of
Devon's nasty murderous son and heir. The Courtenays were won over,
perhaps more because their erstwhile mate York wasn't prepared to
overlook their homicidal tendencies than because of the marriage, but
the other sons don't seem to have married so far as I can ascertain.

Marie

Good morning all--

I have to admit that I deleted all emails regarding the AGM in Toronto as I thought I wouldn't be able to attend. However, I think I might be able to make it but now I can't find any specific hotel information! Could someone point me where any information is posted?

Edie Hopkins




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online