Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-03 20:42:47

pansydobersby

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself?
Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469).
Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel.
It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476?
I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl.
Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right.
In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 15:42:24

mariewalsh2003

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself?
Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469).
Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel.
It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476?
I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl.
Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right.
In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 17:37:10

SandraMachin

Sorry Marie, you may well be right (you probable are!) but it is too much for the historical novelist in me! I have to stand up and be counted. Was Richard really that much more pious and fastidious than other men? We still don't really know the identities of his earlier mistress/es. He may not have been married then, but were they? We guess, but we haven't really got a clue. So, once he lost Anne, would he have resisted, no matter how great the passion and temptation? OK, he was in mourning, but how much? He had been losing' Anne for some time, and her passing was not a bolt out of the blue as his son's had been. He was mentally prepared for the inevitable, which he may have seen as a blessed release for her, because her death was not easy. It was a terrible thing after being robbed of his son as well, but even so, he was obliged to negotiate immediately for a new wife. A childless king had no choice. I feel that things being as they were for him, the poor man could well have fallen by the wayside a once or twice. Not many, but some. He was human first and foremost, and desperately unhappy. Those months between Anne's passing and his own must have been hollow and dark. If ever a man needed loving arms around him, it was Richard at that point in his life. A little comfort would have made his lot more bearable. I am not saying that he jumped between the coverlets with a whole string of doxies, just that he must surely have needed someone at some point. And as he was clearly very discreet about such things in his youth, I imagine he would have been equally discreet when mature---probably even more so. The woman would be discreet as well, a little like most royal lovers are today. Richard was not the sort of man a woman would wish to let down, he was most likely the sort of man she would fall in love with, because for all his power, military skills and fierce preparedness to defend his realm from foreign invasion, he was gentle in his private life and his regard for women. So let him have had a little pleasure, let him have slept in a woman's arms and have been cherished. And let his confessor have been more understanding than most. OK, so it sounds like a characterisation for my next book, but I much prefer it to the thought of him being endlessly devout and alone in his bed of a night, with just his prayer book to keep him warm. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 17:52:48

A J Hibbard

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 18:07:44

SandraMachin

Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society? =^..^= From: A J Hibbard Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 5:52 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Problem is you're seeing him through the lens of your own personality & perceptions, and we really have very little to go on as to Richard's own. Mine are sufficiently different from yours to make me think each one of us would react individually in the situation you're describing, & I just hate to see us heaping more speculation on Richard & his character, no matter how well-intentioned. A J

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Sorry Marie, you may well be right (you probable are!) but it is too much for the historical novelist in me! I have to stand up and be counted. Was Richard really that much more pious and fastidious than other men? We still don't really know the identities of his earlier mistress/es. He may not have been married then, but were they? We guess, but we haven't really got a clue. So, once he lost Anne, would he have resisted, no matter how great the passion and temptation? OK, he was in mourning, but how much? He had been losing' Anne for some time, and her passing was not a bolt out of the blue as his son's had been. He was mentally prepared for the inevitable, which he may have seen as a blessed release for her, because her death was not easy. It was a terrible thing after being robbed of his son as well, but even so, he was obliged to negotiate immediately for a new wife. A childless king had no choice. I feel that things being as they were for him, the poor man could well have fallen by the wayside a once or twice. Not many, but some. He was human first and foremost, and desperately unhappy. Those months between Anne's passing and his own must have been hollow and dark. If ever a man needed loving arms around him, it was Richard at that point in his life. A little comfort would have made his lot more bearable. I am not saying that he jumped between the coverlets with a whole string of doxies, just that he must surely have needed someone at some point. And as he was clearly very discreet about such things in his youth, I imagine he would have been equally discreet when mature---probably even more so. The woman would be discreet as well, a little like most royal lovers are today. Richard was not the sort of man a woman would wish to let down, he was most likely the sort of man she would fall in love with, because for all his power, military skills and fierce preparedness to defend his realm from foreign invasion, he was gentle in his private life and his regard for women. So let him have had a little pleasure, let him have slept in a woman's arms and have been cherished. And let his confessor have been more understanding than most. OK, so it sounds like a characterisation for my next book, but I much prefer it to the thought of him being endlessly devout and alone in his bed of a night, with just his prayer book to keep him warm. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 18:45:50

mariewalsh2003

Sandra,

I can't disprove what you say, but there is no evidence even that Katherine Haute was his mistress/ daughter. We have just this short period of Richard accounts, and just for the de Vere lands he held, and out of that tiny bit of evidence a big story has been spun. My guess is that he was more likely fixed up with a girlfriend by Edward in order to cheer him up. She may well have been older and more experienced. If so, the evidence we have about Edward's own choices suggests she may have been a young widow: no adultery involved, no deflowering, no disparaged husband or father, and she would have been sexually experienced. And Katherine and John may even have had separate mothers.

Edward staedy at Pontefract after his release from Middleham in 1469, and I think Richard was probably with him so that would be an ideal time for him to father a child in that locality. There were a lot of Katherines about.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, you may well be right (you probable are!) but it is too much for the historical novelist in me! I have to stand up and be counted. Was Richard really that much more pious and fastidious than other men? We still don't really know the identities of his earlier mistress/es. He may not have been married then, but were they? We guess, but we haven't really got a clue. So, once he lost Anne, would he have resisted, no matter how great the passion and temptation? OK, he was in mourning, but how much? He had been losing' Anne for some time, and her passing was not a bolt out of the blue as his son's had been. He was mentally prepared for the inevitable, which he may have seen as a blessed release for her, because her death was not easy. It was a terrible thing after being robbed of his son as well, but even so, he was obliged to negotiate immediately for a new wife. A childless king had no choice. I feel that things being as they were for him, the poor man could well have fallen by the wayside a once or twice. Not many, but some. He was human first and foremost, and desperately unhappy. Those months between Anne's passing and his own must have been hollow and dark. If ever a man needed loving arms around him, it was Richard at that point in his life. A little comfort would have made his lot more bearable. I am not saying that he jumped between the coverlets with a whole string of doxies, just that he must surely have needed someone at some point. And as he was clearly very discreet about such things in his youth, I imagine he would have been equally discreet when mature---probably even more so. The woman would be discreet as well, a little like most royal lovers are today. Richard was not the sort of man a woman would wish to let down, he was most likely the sort of man she would fall in love with, because for all his power, military skills and fierce preparedness to defend his realm from foreign invasion, he was gentle in his private life and his regard for women. So let him have had a little pleasure, let him have slept in a woman's arms and have been cherished. And let his confessor have been more understanding than most. OK, so it sounds like a characterisation for my next book, but I much prefer it to the thought of him being endlessly devout and alone in his bed of a night, with just his prayer book to keep him warm. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 18:53:43

mariewalsh2003

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

The Society's purpose is promoting research in order to enable a more accurate assessment of Richard's life and times is because the traditional account lacks evidence. So I would say speculation that is not evidence-based fall way outside that remit.

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 19:18:10

SandraMachin

I submit, Marie. So, no guesswork. Definitely no rose-tinted notions, and not a fluffy kitten in sight. Only serious stuff from now on. I promise. But I still prefer my pov. <g> Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 6:53 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 20:01:12

mariewalsh2003

Yep, you're entitled. And you're writing a novel. But an adulterous liaison might not go down well with Ricardians, not like fluffy kittens and stuff. It would also get you into problems of the inevitable charges of hypocrisy regarding Richard's repeated condemnations of Dorset and other "adulterers"; it would be like bad-mouthing the mother of two of his children for having had them for him. There is also the question of how the children would be known to be Richard's, unless your lady was not having relations with her husband.

Incidentally, I don't think Katherine Haute can have been Richard's daughter because she was getting payments directly. Payments for a child's upkeep would go to the guardian.

But fluffy kittens are fine, I'm sure they had those. And rose-tinted things, and spectacles, maybe even rose-tinted spectacles.

Sorry to be pouring cold water. And it's only my view; it's totally your call. Perhaps you could canvass people on the forum to see how it is likely to go down with readers as a plot.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I submit, Marie. So, no guesswork. Definitely no rose-tinted notions, and not a fluffy kitten in sight. Only serious stuff from now on. I promise. But I still prefer my pov. <g> Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 6:53 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 20:08:01

wednesday\_mc

The problem I see with Richard seeking comfort elsewhere while Anne was dying or after she died is that, as king, he was never alone. So if you want this scenario to be a realistic romantic scenario, first you have to figure out a way to get him away from all the prying, entitled-to-stare-at-the-king eyes at court.

If you're talking while he was living at Middleham and riding throughout all of Yorkshire... I suppose he could have had a mistress or twenty. A doxy in every port?

But if you believe in his piety and moral sense, then you might want to consider that committing adultery was a much greater sin in the eyes of the medieval church than was fornication. Would he have risked his immortal soul, because that's what was at stake if he believed.

Of course, for the sake of a good plot, all of this can be thrown out the window. One of Anne's ladies in waiting would do nicely. Or Elizabeth of York, for that matter. Or Elizabeth's mother if you really want to stretch it. Edward IV seems to have liked older women; why not Richard liking them as well?

I personally think EoY deserved some happiness before being compelled to marry H7. Maybe she found it with Richard. Or with Francis.

Come to that, in this modern age, if we're going to let Richard mess about on the side, he could always do it with Francis Lovell. I'm waiting for that book to be written, it's only a matter of time. Yes, the medieval church had specific laws against buggery. So? If Richard's going to Hell, he might as well be in good company.

Sex may sell and it may be fun to write some scenarios, but if we do survive after death and there's a universal memory/library, I don't want to die of embarrassment at the thought of His Grace reading anything I wrote about him.

We're also writing on a discussion list belonging to a Society in which romantic fiction has no place. And so it goes. The genre is dictated by the audience, yes? So here we must endeavor to be scholarly. On Facebook, not so much.

~Weds

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 22:02:03

SandraMachin

No, Marie, I'm not writing about Richard now, my heroine's life has moved on to pastures new---Book 4---but when I did write about him in Book 1, I did not give him an adulterous liaison. He was faithful to Anne and observed his marriage vows. My posts tonight have just been...my musings. A response arising from the thought that he would never, because of his deep piety, have been with another woman after Anne, unless he found a compliant widow. That is demeaning. He should have been able to turn to someone who really wanted him for himself. Maybe a widow would indeed want him for himself, but what if the woman he was really drawn to was not a widow? What if she was as unhappy as him and her husband had left her? What if, what if...? Does that mean that his religious views would have prevented any thought at all of being with her, no matter what the circumstances? If so, I am sorry. There are many aspects of medieval religion I do not like, as you well know, but I do know he should be viewed in his own time, not ours, which in this instance places me in Fluffy Kitten Land, not reality. But that doesn't stop me hoping there was another side to it for him. Yes, that is completely my point of view, and I do not criticise anyone who disagrees with it. Least of all you, for whom I have great respect. I already know what the forum thinks of my plot. I asked quite openly earlier this year, explaining a pivotal part of the story---yes, incest, not Elizabeth of York but her sister Cicely, and I still defend my decision to write it. To the forum I expressed a wish to thank everyone (acknowledgement in the book) for being so interesting and informative. I was aware that the theme would not be popular with all, and so I wished to be up-front about it before I took it any further. I received a mixed response. Most were prepared to agree, many enthusiastically because it was another pro-Richard book, some agreed in the hope that I do not harm his reputation---which I say I do not. Others felt that any publicity at all was a good thing. Well, the answer to it all remains to be seen when Richard and Cicely's story, the first of a series about her, is published next spring. Those who did not approve---and very few contacted me---were deeply upset. Completely and utterly. I was bemused by the sheer force of feeling. It seemed extreme for the matter in hand. But if that small group of members was so immeasurably distraught by the mere thought of my book, let alone having actually read it, I chose not to mention the forum in it at all, and I posted saying why. It will all be in the files somewhere. Not all the responses, because many were off list, including the few who were very anti indeed. So please, everyone, no more communications about this delicate subject, off list or on. I know what I have written, and the only way anyone else will find out is by reading it. Only then can you judge whether or not I have damaged Richard's reputation. The title is CICELY'S KING RICHARD, it will be published by Hale in May 2014, and I do not have the ISBN yet. It is very definitely fiction, and does not masquerade as anything else. The Author's Note makes that very clear, as it will in all the books, each one of which will have Cicely's name in the title, to show them to be a series. The Author's Note emphasises that I have no justification for bringing Richard and his niece together in such a way, and that it is purely my invention and imagination. I say many things about him in the note, and am quite openly his supporter, believing him innocent of the crimes of which he stands accused. His only crime' in the book is to love someone he should not. And she returns the love when she should not. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 8:01 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Incidentally, I don't think Katherine Haute can have been Richard's daughter because she was getting payments directly. Payments for a child's upkeep would go to the guardian.

But fluffy kittens are fine, I'm sure they had those. And rose-tinted things, and spectacles, maybe even rose-tinted spectacles.

Sorry to be pouring cold water. And it's only my view; it's totally your call. Perhaps you could canvass people on the forum to see how it is likely to go down with readers as a plot.

Marie

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 22:11:18

justcarol67

Marie wrote:

Carol responds:

I agree. Richard clearly did condemn adultery, and not just with regard to Dorset. I can't hunt up all the examples right now, but Elizabeth Shore and possibly Hastings come to mind, as does Thomas St. Leger. And there's the point that you and I agreed on some time back--the important distinction among pious Catholics like Richard between the venial sin of fornication and the mortal sin of adultery. Adultery is adultery whether the man, the woman, or both are married.

By the way, Sandra, if you want fluff and kittens and a sad. lonely Richard, Sharon Kay Penman gives him a last night with a young widow from Yorkshire, presumably to account for the existence of Richard of Eastwell, the reputed illegitimate son that Richard didn't acknowledge. That sort of sentimental touch, which would not have made Richard a hypocrite because it was not adultery, is presumably acceptable to most Ricardians given the popularity of "Sunne in Splendor." And, of course, since he undoubtedly had two illegitimate children, born as far as we can determine before his marriage, his having had at least one and possibly two mistresses during his youth is undeniable. But Richard would have found the sin of sex with a married woman just as reprehensible as he apparently found his brother Edward's adultery.

I forgot to mention that even Mancini, whose sources were mostly if not entirely anti-Richard, could report nothing against Richard's private life. Nor did Croyland, unless you count complaints about Christmas revelry (which was okay for Edward but not for Richard, apparently)..

Just my opinion, but I personally would find an adulterous, hypocritical Richard hard to swallow. That's Vergil's view, a way of accounting for seemingly virtuous behavior and condemnation of sinfulness by a "wicked" man, but it's very far from mine. All the evidence I've seen indicates that both Richard's piety and his condemnation of adultery (as opposed to fornication before marriage) were absolutely sincere.

Carol

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 22:42:42

pansydobersby

Just to clarify: the silly theory about Katherine Haute in the original post was mine, not Sandra's ;) Just so there are no misunderstandings... I forgot to sign my post, sorry.

You're right of course, Marie, that a scenario of that kind is very unlikely; and I apologise for going off on a speculative flight of fancy unsupported by any clear facts. It was in poor taste. I actually find Richard's relationship with his mistress(es) the *least* interesting puzzle about his life, but I did find the connections here to Pontefract, James Tyrrell and another branch of the Haute family too fascinating to resist!

I don't for one minute believe that Richard, as a grown-up, was a hypocrite or an adulterer - but most of us have been very different creatures when we were teenagers. Whether Richard at 17 or so would have done something he would later have condemned is something we can't know for sure, I think. He seems to have looked up to Edward, and though the latter's most famous mistresses were widows, it doesn't change the fact that Edward's interpretation of sexual morals was quite loose (to put it kindly). And it's not like dalliances with married women were never heard of in the culture of the time, regardless of what the Church thought; they were positively idealised in the kind of chivalric romance that Richard himself appears to have read when young.

Not to mention that in the eyes of a hierarchical society it's certainly a far bigger sin to dishonour a lady of Eleanor Talbot's stature than it is to cuckold a gentleman of low standing and obscure family (as this Robert Crane would have been).

Nor do we know for sure when exactly Katherine Darcy even got married...

Anyway, I'm a staunch critic of drawing any conclusions from annuities and such, myself: I'm 100% convinced that Alice Burgh was simply a governess (probably to John) because the wording in Latin is exactly the same as was used to refer to governesses, ladies-in-waiting, etc. in other contemporary-ish documents. I'm also quite convinced that 'Katherine Haute', whoever she was, wasn't Richard's mistress - for the simple reason that an annuity of that kind seems quite insulting. Not only is the annuity quite small, but it seems like a slap in the face to the woman's husband, coming as it does straight from his wife's former lover... as a sort of payment for past sexual favours? Blech. And this to a cousin of the Queen, on top of it all? No. I just don't believe it.

There's probably a very simple explanation to who Katherine Haute really was, and what that annuity was for. I'm not saying it's important, by any means. Please forgive the foolish speculation.

Pansy

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

If you're talking while he was living at Middleham and riding throughout all of Yorkshire... I suppose he could have had a mistress or twenty. A doxy in every port?

I personally think EoY deserved some happiness before being compelled to marry H7. Maybe she found it with Richard. Or with Francis.

~Weds

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-05 22:54:46

SandraMachin

No worries, Pansy, and your speculation is not foolish. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 10:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Just to clarify: the silly theory about Katherine Haute in the original post was mine, not Sandra's ;) Just so there are no misunderstandings... I forgot to sign my post, sorry.

Nor do we know for sure when exactly Katherine Darcy even got married...

There's probably a very simple explanation to who Katherine Haute really was, and what that annuity was for. I'm not saying it's important, by any means. Please forgive the foolish speculation.

Pansy

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

If you're talking while he was living at Middleham and riding throughout all of Yorkshire... I suppose he could have had a mistress or twenty. A doxy in every port?

I personally think EoY deserved some happiness before being compelled to marry H7. Maybe she found it with Richard. Or with Francis.

~Weds

Sandra wrote

"Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society?"

Marie replies:

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Isn't speculation about his character, well-intentioned and otherwise, part and parcel of the Society? =^..^= From: A J Hibbard Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 5:52 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute' Problem is you're seeing him through the lens of your own personality & perceptions, and we really have very little to go on as to Richard's own. Mine are sufficiently different from yours to make me think each one of us would react individually in the situation you're describing, & I just hate to see us heaping more speculation on Richard & his character, no matter how well-intentioned. A J

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Sorry Marie, you may well be right (you probable are!) but it is too much for the historical novelist in me! I have to stand up and be counted. Was Richard really that much more pious and fastidious than other men? We still don't really know the identities of his earlier mistress/es. He may not have been married then, but were they? We guess, but we haven't really got a clue. So, once he lost Anne, would he have resisted, no matter how great the passion and temptation? OK, he was in mourning, but how much? He had been losing' Anne for some time, and her passing was not a bolt out of the blue as his son's had been. He was mentally prepared for the inevitable, which he may have seen as a blessed release for her, because her death was not easy. It was a terrible thing after being robbed of his son as well, but even so, he was obliged to negotiate immediately for a new wife. A childless king had no choice. I feel that things being as they were for him, the poor man could well have fallen by the wayside a once or twice. Not many, but some. He was human first and foremost, and desperately unhappy. Those months between Anne's passing and his own must have been hollow and dark. If ever a man needed loving arms around him, it was Richard at that point in his life. A little comfort would have made his lot more bearable. I am not saying that he jumped between the coverlets with a whole string of doxies, just that he must surely have needed someone at some point. And as he was clearly very discreet about such things in his youth, I imagine he would have been equally discreet when mature---probably even more so. The woman would be discreet as well, a little like most royal lovers are today. Richard was not the sort of man a woman would wish to let down, he was most likely the sort of man she would fall in love with, because for all his power, military skills and fierce preparedness to defend his realm from foreign invasion, he was gentle in his private life and his regard for women. So let him have had a little pleasure, let him have slept in a woman's arms and have been cherished. And let his confessor have been more understanding than most. OK, so it sounds like a characterisation for my next book, but I much prefer it to the thought of him being endlessly devout and alone in his bed of a night, with just his prayer book to keep him warm. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

Hi,

Personally I'd be very surprised if Richard had had sex with a married woman given his views.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I'm unable to make any searches with the new group format, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it at all possible that 'Katherine Haute' of the 1477 annuity fame might actually refer to Richard's daughter Katherine herself? Let me explain: just a little speculative theory here, about the identity of Richard's mistress. I've always thought it most likely that the 'of Pomfret' regarding John of Gloucester meant that he was simply brought up at Pontefract - not that he was necessarily born there, or that her mother was a local girl there. I then noticed that Richard Haute (d. 1487) was likely to have been the castellan of Pontefract, at least in the 1460s. He was married circa 1469-1470 to Elizabeth Tyrrell, who had previously been married to Sir Robert Darcy (d. 1469). Sir Robert Darcy had a younger sister called Katherine Darcy. Some online sources say Katherine was born in 1431, and some say 1442; I personally find the latter more believable, as her first and only marriage occurred in 1465, to a Robert Crane. Katherine died in 1476. Robert Crane remarried in 1477; his second wife was Anne Ogard, Lady Arundel. It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Tyrrell might have been close to her young sister-in-law; Katherine might even have lived with her and Sir Robert when her parents were both dead. This is where my wild speculation kicks in. What if Katherine Darcy was the mother of John of Gloucester, and the latter was raised under the aegis of Elizabeth Haute and her husband at Pontefract? What if Katherine was also the mother of Katherine Plantagenet, and kept the latter with herself until her death in 1476? I assume a man - in this case Robert Crane - would be more likely to tolerate somebody else's - in this case Richard's - child if the child is a 'mere' daughter. But once his wife died in 1476, and he remarried in 1477, he would no longer have had any ties to his wife's illegitimate daughter. At this point, little Katherine might also have been shipped off to Elizabeth and Richard Haute. Hence, 'Katherine Haute': and hence, that 1477 grant to cover some expenses of the expenses of the little girl. Interesting facts: Katherine Darcy was James Tyrrell's aunt - his mother Margaret Darcy was Katherine's sister. Elizabeth Tyrrell was not only James Tyrrell's aunt-by-marriage, but also his first cousin in her own right. In other words, Katherine Plantagenet would have been James Tyrrell's first cousin. *If* my speculation were correct (and it's obviously a very big 'if'), the context of blood ties would shed some new light on James Tyrrell's loyalty to Richard, wouldn't it?

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-07 19:23:25

Douglas Eugene Stamate

ÿ pansydobersby wrote:

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-07 21:12:10

pansydobersby

Hi Douglas,

Could you please copy-paste your message and send it again? I see that you've replied to my post (I see the first line in the messages directory= but the post itself looks empty to me when I click on it. I don't know if it's because there seem to be slashes in the message?

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-08 17:02:05

Douglas Eugene Stamate

Pansy, how's this?
FWITW, when I try to delete by holding down the shift key to highlight what's to be deleted, what I posted shows up - just like a negative!

pansydobersby wrote:

//snip//
Anyway, I'm a staunch critic of drawing any conclusions from annuities and such, myself: I'm 100% convinced that Alice Burgh was simply a governess (probably to John) because the wording in Latin is exactly the same as was used to refer to governesses, ladies-in-waiting, etc. in other contemporary-ish documents. I'm also quite convinced that 'Katherine Haute', whoever she was, wasn't Richard's mistress - for the simple reason that an annuity of that kind seems quite insulting. Not only is the annuity quite small, but it seems like a slap in the face to the woman's husband, coming as it does straight from his wife's former lover... as a sort of payment for past sexual favours? Blech. And this to a cousin of the Queen, on top of it all? No. I just don't believe it."
//snip//

Doug here:
Do we know know the names of *all* of EW's ladies-in-waiting? Or all of Anne's, for that matter? Or could have been a "contribution" to assist a relative in reduced circumstances who could use the funds, but wouldn't necessarily be reliant on them?
If the lady in question was a lady-in-waiting to EW *any* annuity from Richard would be considered a windfall I should think. OTOH, I gather from your post she was a cousin to Anne, so there's the possibility the annuity represented *Anne's* wishes and not Richard's.
FWIW, I regard speculation as foolish only when it's continued *after* facts have come to light to that definitely disprove the speculation. At other times speculation *might* be ill-advised, but that's a different matter altogether...
Doug

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 09:19:07

pansydobersby

Many thanks, Doug - it worked perfectly now!
"Do we know know the names of *all* of EW's ladies-in-waiting? Or all of Anne's, for that matter? Or could have been a "contribution" to assist a relative in reduced circumstances who could use the funds, but wouldn't necessarily be reliant on them?
If the lady in question was a lady-in-waiting to EW *any* annuity from Richard would be considered a windfall I should think. OTOH, I gather from your post she was a cousin to Anne, so there's the possibility the annuity represented *Anne's* wishes and not Richard's."

Good points - just one correction: if this Katherin Haute in question was indeed Katherine-James's-wife Haute, she would have been a cousin-in-law to Elizabeth Woodville, not Anne. James Haute's mother was Joan Woodville. Any annuity coming their way would surely have come from Elizabeth or Edward?
Then again, I don't think Katherine-James's-wife Haute's parentage is known, is it? So she might really have been anyone.
Please stop me before I start speculating that she was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 14:34:35

mariewalsh2003

Since the annuity to Katherine Haute comes was paid out of the de Vere lands, it's also possible that it was an annuity that the Earl of Oxford had granted and that Richard chose to honour.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Many thanks, Doug - it worked perfectly now!
"Do we know know the names of *all* of EW's ladies-in-waiting? Or all of Anne's, for that matter? Or could have been a "contribution" to assist a relative in reduced circumstances who could use the funds, but wouldn't necessarily be reliant on them?
If the lady in question was a lady-in-waiting to EW *any* annuity from Richard would be considered a windfall I should think. OTOH, I gather from your post she was a cousin to Anne, so there's the possibility the annuity represented *Anne's* wishes and not Richard's."

Good points - just one correction: if this Katherin Haute in question was indeed Katherine-James's-wife Haute, she would have been a cousin-in-law to Elizabeth Woodville, not Anne. James Haute's mother was Joan Woodville. Any annuity coming their way would surely have come from Elizabeth or Edward?
Then again, I don't think Katherine-James's-wife Haute's parentage is known, is it? So she might really have been anyone.
Please stop me before I start speculating that she was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 14:48:25

pansydobersby

"Since the annuity to Katherine Haute comes was paid out of the de Vere lands, it's also possible that it was an annuity that the Earl of Oxford had granted and that Richard chose to honour.

Marie"

That's an excellent point, and sounds like a very likely scenario to me!

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 16:27:31

Douglas Eugene Stamate

ÿ pansydobersby wrote:
Doug here: Then the size of the annuity may simply have been because Anne felt it was her duty to provide *something* to a woman who was related to a former "Queen". However, as Katherine was only EW's cousin by marriage, the annuity wouldn't be large, more in the manner of a remembrance. Not too different perhaps from giving presents to family members at Christmas; grand/parents, parents-in-law, siblings and children and really close friends get a present of some sort, everyone else gets a card? Doug

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 18:04:45

wednesday\_mc

Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds

---In , <> wrote:

Many thanks, Doug - it worked perfectly now!
"Do we know know the names of *all* of EW's ladies-in-waiting? Or all of Anne's, for that matter? Or could have been a "contribution" to assist a relative in reduced circumstances who could use the funds, but wouldn't necessarily be reliant on them?
If the lady in question was a lady-in-waiting to EW *any* annuity from Richard would be considered a windfall I should think. OTOH, I gather from your post she was a cousin to Anne, so there's the possibility the annuity represented *Anne's* wishes and not Richard's."

Good points - just one correction: if this Katherin Haute in question was indeed Katherine-James's-wife Haute, she would have been a cousin-in-law to Elizabeth Woodville, not Anne. James Haute's mother was Joan Woodville. Any annuity coming their way would surely have come from Elizabeth or Edward?
Then again, I don't think Katherine-James's-wife Haute's parentage is known, is it? So she might really have been anyone.
Please stop me before I start speculating that she was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-11 18:46:56

pansydobersby

"Pansy wrote:

Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-12 21:35:44

Hilary Jones

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-12 23:40:29

pansydobersby

Hilary, I definitely agree it needs further exploration! Fascinating stuff. I was quite intrigued by this Dame Katherine Haute a while ago - especially as her will separately mentions an 'eldest son John' who isn't really accounted for in the genealogical tables. Typically, my mind started racing ('OH MY GOD THAT KATHERINE HAUTE MUST BE JOHN OF GLOUCESTER'S MOTHER'). Then I lost interest for a while as it seemed apparent she couldn't have been Katherine Haute in 1477 (it seems likely she married her husband Haute in the late 1480s). But she seems like a fascinating figure in her own right, as an upwardly mobile merchant's daughter who amassed wealth and connections through her marriages.

I think she was born Katherine Boston, not Wootton, by the way. And it seems that her 'sister Catesby' was her sister-in-law from her second (?) marriage to John Grene: Elizabeth Gre(e)ne, who married John Catesby. How close a relation this John Catesby is to 'our' Catesby, I don't know, but it's certainly intriguing.

I'm guessing the Sir Thomas Tyrrell mentioned in the will must be the one who was married to Constance Blount, and who had a son John Tyrrell, but I don't know who Katherine's 'sister John Tirell's wife' was and whether she might have been married to Sir Thomas's son. I don't know how old he even was at the time.

I was a bit confused by the two Richard Hautes - it doesn't seem quite clear which one was which and what each of them did. Was the Richard Haute who rebelled Katherine Boston's husband, or the husband of Elizabeth Tyrrell/son of Joan Woodville? Does anyone even know for sure? Some say he was the comptroller of Edward V's household and was executed with Rivers et al., so I'm guessing he was the latter Richard Haute. Then others say he was the only one to be pardoned and died in 1487. Though that would raise the interesting question *why* he alone was pardoned.

Too much to think about before bedtime...

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 00:02:50

pansydobersby

Hmm, interesting - just one more thing I just came across. If this document is to be believed:

http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-10-311.pdf

... John Tyrrell of Beeches was married to Katherine Walden, who may have been the daughter of John Walden.

As it happens, Katherine Boston's mother Margery/Margaret Rich was first married to a John Walden! So if these pieces fit, that would make Katherine Boston/Haute and Katherine Walden/Tyrrell half-sisters.

If I get this right, John Tyrrell's father was Sir William Tyrrell of Beeches who was the brother of William Tyrrell of Gipping... who was the father of Sir James Tyrrell. So Katherine Boston's half-sister would have been the wife of Sir James Tyrrell's first cousin.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - my brain doesn't function properly at this late hour...

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 00:54:52

mariewalsh2003

I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 13:00:43

Hilary Jones

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 18:13:02

justcarol67

No one named Haute was "executed with Rivers et al." The only persons executed were Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Too much to think about before bedtime...

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 18:31:08

Hilary Jones

Not me who mentioned executions. The Tyrell link we have is that Elizabeth Tyrell, presumably sister to James, was married to Robert Darcy before she married Richard Haute. But this was Richard Haute Comptroller of the Household to Edward Prince of Wales who died in 1487, not Sir Richard Haute married to our Katherine Boston who died in 1492. Now Horrox agrees there were two Richard Hautes, Sir Richard is down (only by girders) as the son of Edmund Haute (who I have yet to pin down). Comptroller Richard is the son of William and brother of James (of the other Katherine) and his mother is Joan Woodville. Did William have two Richards? It's not inknown. It's intriguing that the Darcys appear yet again. H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 18:13, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
No one named Haute was "executed with Rivers et al." The only persons executed were Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn.
Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hilary, I definitely agree it needs further exploration! Fascinating stuff. I was quite intrigued by this Dame Katherine Haute a while ago - especially as her will separately mentions an 'eldest son John' who isn't really accounted for in the genealogical tables. Typically, my mind started racing ('OH MY GOD THAT KATHERINE HAUTE MUST BE JOHN OF GLOUCESTER'S MOTHER'). Then I lost interest for a while as it seemed apparent she couldn't have been Katherine Haute in 1477 (it seems likely she married her husband Haute in the late 1480s). But she seems like a fascinating figure in her own right, as an upwardly mobile merchant's daughter who amassed wealth and connections through her marriages.
I think she was born Katherine Boston, not Wootton, by the way. And it seems that her 'sister Catesby' was her sister-in-law from her second (?) marriage to John Grene: Elizabeth Gre(e)ne, who married John Catesby. How close a relation this John Catesby is to 'our' Catesby, I don't know, but it's certainly intriguing.
I'm guessing the Sir Thomas Tyrrell mentioned in the will must be the one who was married to Constance Blount, and who had a son John Tyrrell, but I don't know who Katherine's 'sister John Tirell's wife' was and whether she might have been married to Sir Thomas's son. I don't know how old he even was at the time.
I was a bit confused by the two Richard Hautes - it doesn't seem quite clear which one was which and what each of them did. Was the Richard Haute who rebelled Katherine Boston's husband, or the husband of Elizabeth Tyrrell/son of Joan Woodville? Does anyone even know for sure? Some say he was the comptroller of Edward V's household and was executed with Rivers et al., so I'm guessing he was the latter Richard Haute. Then others say he was the only one to be pardoned and died in 1487. Though that would raise the interesting question *why* he alone was pardoned.
Too much to think about before bedtime...
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 19:25:57

pansydobersby

"No one named Haute was "executed with Rivers et al." The only persons executed were Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn.

Carol"

Ah, but Carol, I didn't claim he *was* executed; I just said it's been *said* he was. From Kendall:

"Fabyan reports that Sir Richard Haute, cousin to the Woodvilles and treasurer of Prince Edward's household, was arrested and executed along with Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan. No other contemporary source mentions Haute, however, and the subject is doubtful and confused."

I don't believe he was executed, but I'm intrigued by the error. Would be interesting to know how it came about.

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 19:32:32

A J Hibbard

It's also mentioned in Green, Richard Firth, "Historical Notes of a London Citizen", 1483-1488, EHR, 96, (1981)
"[the annals]... seem to imply that others apart from Sir Thomas Vaughan and Sir Richard Hawte were executed with Elizabeth Woodville's brother and son." This is Green's gloss on the MS
And in the same moneyth the Quenes brother,Antony Wodfeild Lord Reuers, and the Lord Rychard, Quene Elizabeth 15 son5 be her first husbond, wer put to deyth, with many moo.
A J

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

"No one named Haute was "executed with Rivers et al." The only persons executed were Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn.

Carol"

Ah, but Carol, I didn't claim he *was* executed; I just said it's been *said* he was. From Kendall:

I don't believe he was executed, but I'm intrigued by the error. Would be interesting to know how it came about.

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 19:33:09

pansydobersby

"Not me who mentioned executions. The Tyrell link we have is that Elizabeth Tyrell, presumably sister to James, was married to Robert Darcy before she married Richard Haute. But this was Richard Haute Comptroller of the Household to Edward Prince of Wales who died in 1487, not Sir Richard Haute married to our Katherine Boston who died in 1492. Now Horrox agrees there were two Richard Hautes, Sir Richard is down (only by girders) as the son of Edmund Haute (who I have yet to pin down). Comptroller Richard is the son of William and brother of James (of the other Katherine) and his mother is Joan Woodville. Did William have two Richards? It's not inknown. It's intriguing that the Darcys appear yet again. H."

Not sure if my earlier messages have come through, Hilary, but it seems to me that Elizabeth Tyrrell was in fact first cousin to James.

Katherine Boston also seems to have a Tyrrell link, as it appears her half-sister Katherine Walden was married to John Tyrrell of Beeches - another first cousin to James.

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 20:20:26

mariewalsh2003

I think from memory that Sir Thomas Tyrell was Sir James' first cousin, but my Tyrell stuff is very rusty.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-13 21:18:14

David Rayner

My data has the following 4 Richard Hautes:
Richard "The Elder" (2nd son of William) 1438-1487, married Elizabeth Tyrrell (widow of Robert Darcy).
Richard "The Younger" (son of Edmund son of Nicholas brother of William) 1446-1492, married (1)Eleanor Roos of Rockingham, (2)Katherine Boston (widow of (1)Walter Writtle or Wrythe, (2)John Green of Chiselhurst).
There was also a Richard Haute, 3rd son of James, son of William; and another Richard, brother of Edmund above.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 20:20, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I think from memory that Sir Thomas Tyrell was Sir James' first cousin, but my Tyrell stuff is very rusty. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 10:59:24

Hilary Jones

Yes I've got that too David, though I'm having a job confirming Edmund except through girders. What I'm saying is that Dame Katherine's will and her closeness and that of her husband to the Tyrells would make much more sense if the two Richard Hautes were brothers (which is what some genealogical websites say). Also Joan Fogge, Richard the elder's niece married a Sir Thomas Grene. I can trace that Dame Katherine had a daughter by Writtle who married a Walsingham but so far children by John Grene of Chislehurst are proving elusive, and she seems to have none by Richard the younger. I need to check her will again. H.It's interesting that I recall a little while ago someone asked about the Woodville presence in Kent. Certainly the Hautes seem to have been big players in Kent for most of the century.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 21:18, David Rayner <davidarayner@...> wrote:
My data has the following 4 Richard Hautes:
Richard "The Elder" (2nd son of William) 1438-1487, married Elizabeth Tyrrell (widow of Robert Darcy).
Richard "The Younger" (son of Edmund son of Nicholas brother of William) 1446-1492, married (1)Eleanor Roos of Rockingham, (2)Katherine Boston (widow of (1)Walter Writtle or Wrythe, (2)John Green of Chiselhurst).
There was also a Richard Haute, 3rd son of James, son of William; and another Richard, brother of Edmund above.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 20:20, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I think from memory that Sir Thomas Tyrell was Sir James' first cousin, but my Tyrell stuff is very rusty. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 11:59:58

mariewalsh2003

William Catesby actually had two close relatives called John who have been confused with each other. The one who died in 1486 was John Catesby Esquire, who was lord of the manor of Althorpe, Northants, then known as Oldthorpe (yes it is Princess Diana's Althorpe).

Sir John Catesby the justice was a different individual. I can't recall when he died but I think it was later than 1486.

John of Althorpe made a nuncupative (verbal) will which suggests he left no children because according to the witnesses he made no mention of either sons or daughters and:-

"...the seyd John Catesby for the wele of hys soule ... wollid... in this his last will that John Catesby hys cosen [sic] and sonne till hys brother Syr William Catesby of the shyre of Northampton, knight, late decesid, have hold and enjoy hys maner of Oldthorp...."

Lots of John Catesbys, unfortunately.

The will of John Catesby of Althorpe is in Logge, for those of you who have it.

Marie

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 12:43:40

Hilary Jones

According to the history of Parliament Sir John Catesby, Judge of Common Pleas died in 1486, just after being restored to favour by Henry VII. He was the one married to Elizabeth Grene and the ancestor of the Gunpowder Plotters. John Catesby, gentleman his elder brother, who was married to Mary Newnham (as in King's Newnham) and sold Wormleighton to John Spencer of Althorpe could also have died in the same year as per your will above? What's also interesting is that George Catesby, our Will's son married Empson's daughter. Empson must have been desperate for land or you'd have thought he'd have avoided an association with the Catesbys like the plague. Sheep again no doubt? H.

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 12:00, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
William Catesby actually had two close relatives called John who have been confused with each other. The one who died in 1486 was John Catesby Esquire, who was lord of the manor of Althorpe, Northants, then known as Oldthorpe (yes it is Princess Diana's Althorpe).Sir John Catesby the justice was a different individual. I can't recall when he died but I think it was later than 1486.John of Althorpe made a nuncupative (verbal) will which suggests he left no children because according to the witnesses he made no mention of either sons or daughters and:-"...the seyd John Catesby for the wele of hys soule ... wollid... in this his last will that John Catesby hys cosen [sic] and sonne till hys brother Syr William Catesby of the shyre of Northampton, knight, late decesid, have hold and enjoy hys maner of Oldthorp...."Lots of John Catesbys, unfortunately.The will of John Catesby of Althorpe is in Logge, for those of you who have it.MarieMarie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 13:11:47

mariewalsh2003

I think the Sir Thomas Tyrell mentioned in the will was son of Sir William Tyrell of Beeches (d. 1471) and Eleanor Darcy. He died in 1512 and was in favour with Henry VII's regime, being linked to the Earl of Oxford, and was knighted after Stoke. He married Anne Devereux then Beatrice Cockayne. My family tree suggests that he and Sir James may have been first cousins through their mothers (their Darcy mothers were, I think, sisters), and first cousins once removed through their fathers, but I'm lacking definitive evidence for some of the links in the chain. I intend to get back to the Tyrells one day, but not yet.

This is a good link to his will and family details:-

http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-17-263.pdf

Incidentally, the Gipping branch was a junior line - Sir James' father was a younger son.

Also, Grene was a very common surname, even at minor gentry level, and not all Grenes in the records belonged to the same bunch. Somewhere in an old Ricardian there is an article that attempts to identify the John Grene who according to the legend was involved in the murder of the Princes.

The different Tyrell branches were not always in sympathy with each other politically*, and most were called Thomas or William, which doesn't help.

Marie

*The Tyrells were basically Lancastrian in sympathy, but James' upbringing as a ward of Cecily Neville turned him into a Yorkist despite his father's execution for treason against Edward IV. She allowed him to remain with his mother whilst he was small, then possibly (I know of no direct evidence) placed him in the household of her son-in-law the Duke of Suffolk. He was knighted after Tewkesbury, and his service to Richard may date from that time; he was certainly with Gloucester by late 1472. By contrast, I think Sir Thomas' father, Sir William, probably died fighting for the Lancastrians under Oxford at Barnet.

---In , <> wrote:

Too much to think about before bedtime...

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 13:27:41

Hilary Jones

David, sorry to be out of order, but I've just looked again at Dame Katherine's will. She has four sons, John, Humphrey, Richard and a younger John. Are they Haute's or Grene's? I can't find any of them in the usual sources and I think Sir Richard left his stuff to his wife and mother (he died a few months before Katherine). H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 12:43, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
According to the history of Parliament Sir John Catesby, Judge of Common Pleas died in 1486, just after being restored to favour by Henry VII. He was the one married to Elizabeth Grene and the ancestor of the Gunpowder Plotters. John Catesby, gentleman his elder brother, who was married to Mary Newnham (as in King's Newnham) and sold Wormleighton to John Spencer of Althorpe could also have died in the same year as per your will above? What's also interesting is that George Catesby, our Will's son married Empson's daughter. Empson must have been desperate for land or you'd have thought he'd have avoided an association with the Catesbys like the plague. Sheep again no doubt? H.

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 12:00, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
William Catesby actually had two close relatives called John who have been confused with each other. The one who died in 1486 was John Catesby Esquire, who was lord of the manor of Althorpe, Northants, then known as Oldthorpe (yes it is Princess Diana's Althorpe).Sir John Catesby the justice was a different individual. I can't recall when he died but I think it was later than 1486.John of Althorpe made a nuncupative (verbal) will which suggests he left no children because according to the witnesses he made no mention of either sons or daughters and:-"...the seyd John Catesby for the wele of hys soule ... wollid... in this his last will that John Catesby hys cosen [sic] and sonne till hys brother Syr William Catesby of the shyre of Northampton, knight, late decesid, have hold and enjoy hys maner of Oldthorp...."Lots of John Catesbys, unfortunately.The will of John Catesby of Althorpe is in Logge, for those of you who have it.MarieMarie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 13:50:50

pansydobersby

---In , <> wrote:

Yes I've got that too David, though I'm having a job confirming Edmund except through girders. What I'm saying is that Dame Katherine's will and her closeness and that of her husband to the Tyrells would make much more sense if the two Richard Hautes were brothers (which is what some genealogical websites say). Also Joan Fogge, Richard the elder's niece married a Sir Thomas Grene. I can trace that Dame Katherine had a daughter by Writtle who married a Walsingham but so far children by John Grene of Chislehurst are proving elusive, and she seems to have none by Richard the younger. I need to check her will again. H.It's interesting that I recall a little while ago someone asked about the Woodville presence in Kent. Certainly the Hautes seem to have been big players in Kent for most of the century.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 21:18, David Rayner <davidarayner@...> wrote:
My data has the following 4 Richard Hautes:
Richard "The Elder" (2nd son of William) 1438-1487, married Elizabeth Tyrrell (widow of Robert Darcy).
Richard "The Younger" (son of Edmund son of Nicholas brother of William) 1446-1492, married (1)Eleanor Roos of Rockingham, (2)Katherine Boston (widow of (1)Walter Writtle or Wrythe, (2)John Green of Chiselhurst).
There was also a Richard Haute, 3rd son of James, son of William; and another Richard, brother of Edmund above.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 20:20, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I think from memory that Sir Thomas Tyrell was Sir James' first cousin, but my Tyrell stuff is very rusty. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 14:01:55

pansydobersby

Hilary:

"What I'm saying is that Dame Katherine's will and her closeness and that of her husband to the Tyrells would make much more sense if the two Richard Hautes were brothers (which is what some genealogical websites say)."

But Dame Katherine's sister through her mother, Katherine Walden, appears to have been married to John Tyrrell of Beeches... I think this would explain her closeness to the Tyrells, too?

Not to mention that they would have moved in the same circles a lot, it seems. It was interesting to look at a list of High Sheriffs of Essex, for example: Tyrell names keep coming up often, but other familiar names too - Robert Darcy appears in 1458, and in 1468 and 1470 the High Sheriff was Walter Writtle, Dame Katherine's husband!

"Also Joan Fogge, Richard the elder's niece married a Sir Thomas Grene."

These would be Katherine Parr's grandparents, wouldn't they? (Interestingly, wasn't Radcliffe's mother also of the same Parrs of Kendal...?)

"I can trace that Dame Katherine had a daughter by Writtle who married a Walsingham but so far children by John Grene of Chislehurst are proving elusive, and she seems to have none by Richard the younger."

I think her other daughter by Writtle married a John Rochester.

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 14:20:25

Hilary Jones

Hi Pansy, Now I am even more confused. I've got Katherine Boston's parents as Thomas Boston and Margery Rich (daughter of Sheriff of London Richard Rich) - and so far no other children?Were the Parrs of Kendal Richard's Tom Parr who died at Barnet?You'r right about the Kent connection.It all gets more incestuous. Back to the drawing board in search of Mr Rochester. H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 14:01, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:"What I'm saying is that Dame Katherine's will and her closeness and that of her husband to the Tyrells would make much more sense if the two Richard Hautes were brothers (which is what some genealogical websites say)."
But Dame Katherine's sister through her mother, Katherine Walden, appears to have been married to John Tyrrell of Beeches... I think this would explain her closeness to the Tyrells, too?
Not to mention that they would have moved in the same circles a lot, it seems. It was interesting to look at a list of High Sheriffs of Essex, for example: Tyrell names keep coming up often, but other familiar names too - Robert Darcy appears in 1458, and in 1468 and 1470 the High Sheriff was Walter Writtle, Dame Katherine's husband!
"Also Joan Fogge, Richard the elder's niece married a Sir Thomas Grene."
These would be Katherine Parr's grandparents, wouldn't they? (Interestingly, wasn't Radcliffe's mother also of the same Parrs of Kendal...?)
"I can trace that Dame Katherine had a daughter by Writtle who married a Walsingham but so far children by John Grene of Chislehurst are proving elusive, and she seems to have none by Richard the younger."
I think her other daughter by Writtle married a John Rochester.
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 14:32:20

Hilary Jones

David, Apologies I have now read the DNB, but how reliable it is who can say? It has James Haute dying in the fifteenth century when in fact he made his will in 1508 and his dear wife Katherine was still alive. H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 14:20, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Hi Pansy, Now I am even more confused. I've got Katherine Boston's parents as Thomas Boston and Margery Rich (daughter of Sheriff of London Richard Rich) - and so far no other children?Were the Parrs of Kendal Richard's Tom Parr who died at Barnet?You'r right about the Kent connection.It all gets more incestuous. Back to the drawing board in search of Mr Rochester. H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 14:01, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:"What I'm saying is that Dame Katherine's will and her closeness and that of her husband to the Tyrells would make much more sense if the two Richard Hautes were brothers (which is what some genealogical websites say)."
But Dame Katherine's sister through her mother, Katherine Walden, appears to have been married to John Tyrrell of Beeches... I think this would explain her closeness to the Tyrells, too?
Not to mention that they would have moved in the same circles a lot, it seems. It was interesting to look at a list of High Sheriffs of Essex, for example: Tyrell names keep coming up often, but other familiar names too - Robert Darcy appears in 1458, and in 1468 and 1470 the High Sheriff was Walter Writtle, Dame Katherine's husband!
"Also Joan Fogge, Richard the elder's niece married a Sir Thomas Grene."
These would be Katherine Parr's grandparents, wouldn't they? (Interestingly, wasn't Radcliffe's mother also of the same Parrs of Kendal...?)
"I can trace that Dame Katherine had a daughter by Writtle who married a Walsingham but so far children by John Grene of Chislehurst are proving elusive, and she seems to have none by Richard the younger."
I think her other daughter by Writtle married a John Rochester.
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 15:44:08

mariewalsh2003

Just lost first reply. I've checked short article in one of the old newsletters they used to send us transcribers during the Logge project. Jacqueline Simpson, who transcribed the will of John Catesby of Althorpe and was I think working at the Northants Record Office at the time, had to cope with the two Johns having been mixed up by the then DNB. She confirms that Sir John the justice "seems to have died in 1486", that he lived at Whiston and left 7 sons and 2 daughters, and that John of Althorpe died without issue.

John Spencer was not, of course, "of Althorpe" during Sir John Catesby's lifetime as it belonged to Sir John Catesby's own brother. There is some info on the Spencers' acquisition of Catesby property in Daniel Williams' article 'The Hastily Drawn up Will of William Catesby Esquire' (Leics. Arch. & Hist. Soc.); there's a copy in the Barton Library.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

David, sorry to be out of order, but I've just looked again at Dame Katherine's will. She has four sons, John, Humphrey, Richard and a younger John. Are they Haute's or Grene's? I can't find any of them in the usual sources and I think Sir Richard left his stuff to his wife and mother (he died a few months before Katherine). H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 12:43, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
According to the history of Parliament Sir John Catesby, Judge of Common Pleas died in 1486, just after being restored to favour by Henry VII. He was the one married to Elizabeth Grene and the ancestor of the Gunpowder Plotters. John Catesby, gentleman his elder brother, who was married to Mary Newnham (as in King's Newnham) and sold Wormleighton to John Spencer of Althorpe could also have died in the same year as per your will above? What's also interesting is that George Catesby, our Will's son married Empson's daughter. Empson must have been desperate for land or you'd have thought he'd have avoided an association with the Catesbys like the plague. Sheep again no doubt? H.

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 12:00, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
William Catesby actually had two close relatives called John who have been confused with each other. The one who died in 1486 was John Catesby Esquire, who was lord of the manor of Althorpe, Northants, then known as Oldthorpe (yes it is Princess Diana's Althorpe).Sir John Catesby the justice was a different individual. I can't recall when he died but I think it was later than 1486.John of Althorpe made a nuncupative (verbal) will which suggests he left no children because according to the witnesses he made no mention of either sons or daughters and:-"...the seyd John Catesby for the wele of hys soule ... wollid... in this his last will that John Catesby hys cosen [sic] and sonne till hys brother Syr William Catesby of the shyre of Northampton, knight, late decesid, have hold and enjoy hys maner of Oldthorp...."Lots of John Catesbys, unfortunately.The will of John Catesby of Althorpe is in Logge, for those of you who have it.MarieMarie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry it was Katherine Boston (widow). The only link I can find so far is that Sir John Catesby (died 1486), William's uncle and Judge of Common Pleas was married to Elizabeth Grene, daughter of Walter Grene (d 1456) and Elizabeth Warner. The Grene's seem to have a connection with Green's Norton in Northants and with the Zouche family according to miscellaneous writings on the web, but I can't tie it down yet. In her will Dame Katherine doesn't sound that old. Do I recall that both she and Sir Richard talk about their mother? And was Thoms Tyrell James's brother or son? H.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 0:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I have Sir Richard Haute's wife Katherine as the daughter of one Thomas Boston. She had previously been married to John Grene and Walter Writtle (d. 1475). I haven't worked out who her "sister" Catesby was either. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

There were actually two Katherine Hautes. One was the wife of James Haute, the other was Dame Katherine Haute, the wife of Sir Richard Haute who was knighted by Richard during the Scottish campaign, joined Buckingham's rebellion, was pardoned and joined HT at Bosworth. He and his wife (who was I recall born Katherine Wootton (?) died in 1492. James, Sir Richard and Dame Katherine all left wills - James's wife (purported by some to be Richard's Katherine) outlived them all but seems to have had a son with Haute.What's interesting about them is not so much the direct Richard connection, but their connection to the Tyrells who are mentioned in all their wills (I think Tyrell was executor to Sir Richard's will, I'd have to look it up again) and Dame Katherine talks about her 'sister Catesby' who can't be Margaret Zouche. I've often thought it need further exploration, given the Woodville connection as well. H

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:46, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
"Pansy wrote:
Please stop me before I start speculating that [Katherine-James's-wife Haute] was, in fact, Warwick's illegitimate daughter. ;)

I thought Margaret Neville (who married Richard Huddleston) was Warwick's illegitimate daughter? Did he/was it rumored he had more than one? So confused....

~Weds"
Sorry Weds, it was just (another) bad joke on my part ;) I don't think he's been rumoured to have any others!
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 15:48:28

pansydobersby

Hilary:

"Now I am even more confused. I've got Katherine Boston's parents as Thomas Boston and Margery Rich (daughter of Sheriff of London Richard Rich) - and so far no other children?"
Sorry, I think my wording was a bit confusing! I meant that Margery Rich had been previously married to John Walden, and Katherine Walden, who married John Tyrrell of Beeches, was most likely their daughter. This would explain why Dame Katherine Haute mentions 'her sister John Tirell's wife' in her will.
Interestingly enough, according to this:http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-10-311.pdf

... Katherine Walden was also the mother of 'Dame Anne Tyrrell, a nun at the Minories of London'!
"Were the Parrs of Kendal Richard's Tom Parr who died at Barnet?"
It would appear so, yes:http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/PARR1.htm#Thomas PARR1

So Richard's Tom Parr would have been the late uncle of Queen Katherine Parr's father.
Wheel of fortune... funny how that works.
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 16:02:33

pansydobersby

Another interesting merry-go-round of family connections:

Robert Darcy's sister, Alice Darcy, married the fervent Lancastrian merchant John Clopton.

Their son William Clopton married Joan Marrow, Dame Katherine Haute's first cousin.

William Clopton's son Francis Clopton married Bridget Crane, the daughter of Robert Crane, formerly the husband of Katherine Darcy (either sister or daughter of Robert Crane, it seems unclear) who was the subject of the first post in this thread...

Add to this the fascinating, gorgeous windows in Long Melford Church, depicting John Clopton's family, friends and benefactors - including both Elizabeth Mowbray and Anne Montgomery, whose close connection was discussed just a while ago here...

Methinks there's a hugely tangled web of connections in the background here.

Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-14 16:41:35

Hilary Jones

Thanks a million - just shows how you have to follow the most unlikely lead! Yes and the Parrs, weird really weird. Took my kids to see her lovely tomb at Sudeley when it was still open. H

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 15:48, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:"Now I am even more confused. I've got Katherine Boston's parents as Thomas Boston and Margery Rich (daughter of Sheriff of London Richard Rich) - and so far no other children?"
Sorry, I think my wording was a bit confusing! I meant that Margery Rich had been previously married to John Walden, and Katherine Walden, who married John Tyrrell of Beeches, was most likely their daughter. This would explain why Dame Katherine Haute mentions 'her sister John Tirell's wife' in her will.
Interestingly enough, according to this:http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-10-311.pdf

... Katherine Walden was also the mother of 'Dame Anne Tyrrell, a nun at the Minories of London'!
"Were the Parrs of Kendal Richard's Tom Parr who died at Barnet?"
It would appear so, yes:http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/PARR1.htm#Thomas PARR1

So Richard's Tom Parr would have been the late uncle of Queen Katherine Parr's father.
Wheel of fortune... funny how that works.
Pansy

Re: Speculation about 'Katherine Haute'

2013-10-15 17:28:18

Hilary Jones

Exactly. I didn't know the extensions of all this but it seems like a huge web embracing Tyrells, Woodvilles, Darcys and Hautes. Which could have covered up the disappearance of the princes and was conveniently located on the South East coast . But why did Sir Richard Haute betray Richard - twice? A lot, lot more work methinks. H.

On Monday, 14 October 2013, 17:24, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Another interesting merry-go-round of family connections:
Robert Darcy's sister, Alice Darcy, married the fervent Lancastrian merchant John Clopton.
Their son William Clopton married Joan Marrow, Dame Katherine Haute's first cousin.
William Clopton's son Francis Clopton married Bridget Crane, the daughter of Robert Crane, formerly the husband of Katherine Darcy (either sister or daughter of Robert Crane, it seems unclear) who was the subject of the first post in this thread...
Add to this the fascinating, gorgeous windows in Long Melford Church, depicting John Clopton's family, friends and benefactors - including both Elizabeth Mowbray and Anne Montgomery, whose close connection was discussed just a while ago here...
Methinks there's a hugely tangled web of connections in the background here.
Pansy

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.