Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: News since Sunday

I have a definitive list, from my usual source:

Father: Richard, Duke of Suffolk d.1491
First: John, Earl of Lincoln 1462-87
Second: Edward d.1485
Third: Edmund, Earl and occasionally Duke of Suffolk 1472-1513; had a daughter (Anne, became a nun)
Fourth: Humphrey 1474-1513 (priest, possibly confused with Geoffrey)
Fifth: William c.1478-1539
Sixth: Geoffrey (warning: my source says he may not have existed!); D. Cl at Cambridge
Seventh: Richard d.1525
Also: Anne and three other sisters.

Yes, the title "White Rose" was transferred from Edmund to Richard.

To return to the House of Clarence, my source only quibbled with Francis of Huntingdon's birth year (1514). He agrees that Francis' mother Anne Stafford was the daughter (c.1480-?) of Duke Henry. He has a list of Stafford Earls of Wiltshire, dying out in 1499, that are cousins of Duke Edward, not his brother. He has not "audited" our Hastings family tree yet.
All part of the illustrations for my Thomas Stafford presentation. Keep your eyes on the Bulletin for a precis of it.

----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: News since Sunday


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> I have read a chapter and a half of Perkin. Ann Wroe describes the
different versions' of his story, details what we call "Jones'
Hypothesis", talked about Warwick's captivity and "learning
difficulties" and reveals the existence of a third prince - George
(born in 1479, died very soon). Note the name, AFTER his uncle's
execution for treason.
> I have obtained, through a Society Committee member, some dates
and names relating to the Clarence and Buckingham lines, for use in
my presentation on Thomas Stafford. Apparently, he had the full
works (drawn, hanged and quartered). Surely this could not have
happened summarily in Scarborough as I thought was the fate of all
the rebels?
> I have also read that Lincoln's brother Edward (the second son)
died in 1485. Was he at Bosworth, perhaps?
>
>

Thomas Stafford was taken to London for execution.

There is a brother of the de la Poles's I came across once only and
he was never referred to again, I think it was William. In fact
there were 6 altogether. John was eldest, Edmund was earl (though he
is sometimes called duke like his father) of Suffolk aka the White
Rose, executed 1513 (Henry VII before dying advised his son to
execute Edmund should he ever go abroad, as he did in 1513.) I have
seen Richard referred to as the White Rose, rather than Edmund. Did
the nickname get transferred? Richard doesn't die till the Battle of
Pavia in 1525. As said there is Edward who dies 1485 and also
Humphrey who dies 1513, also William who dies 1539 and one called
Geoffrey of unknown death date in the source I used. Edmund is
usually referred to as the 2nd son but this may in fact have been
Edward. Does anyone have any information about any of them other
than John, Edmund and Richard as I, for one, would be very
interested.
Brunhild


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> I have a definitive list, from my usual source:
>
> Father: Richard, Duke of Suffolk d.1491
> First: John, Earl of Lincoln 1462-87
> Second: Edward d.1485

Just a quick look at my notes, says Edward was an archdeacon and
died "before 8 October 1485" - I take it that is the date of the
inquisition post mortem or whatever. Looks more likely that he died
of the sweating sickness than at Bosworth. There was a recent article
on the fortunes of the de la Poles after Bosworth in Blanc Sanglier,
the Yorkshire's Branch's mag. It may be viewable online, but if not
I'll hunt it out.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I have a definitive list, from my usual source:
> >
> > Father: Richard, Duke of Suffolk d.1491
> > First: John, Earl of Lincoln 1462-87
> > Second: Edward d.1485
>
> Just a quick look at my notes, says Edward was an archdeacon and
> died "before 8 October 1485" - I take it that is the date of the
> inquisition post mortem or whatever. Looks more likely that he died
> of the sweating sickness than at Bosworth. There was a recent
article
> on the fortunes of the de la Poles after Bosworth in Blanc
Sanglier,
> the Yorkshire's Branch's mag. It may be viewable online, but if not
> I'll hunt it out.
>
> Marie

Hello me,

Just to start, the family tree I have for the de la Pole children
names:

1. Lincoln 1462/4-1487
2. Edward, the archdeacon, d. 1485
3. Edward, 1472-1513
4. Humphrey, 1 August 1474- 15 February 1513 (a priest)
5. William 1478-1539
6. Geoffrey
7. Richard, d. 24 February 1525, battle of Pavia
8. Katherine, married William Lord Stourton (1457-1524)
9. Elizabeth, married Henry Lovell Lord Morley (d after 1489 aged 51)
10. Anne
11. One other daughter





The article in Blanc Sanglier was in the December 2002 issue (vol 37
no 1), but apparently an expanded version of the same article
appeated in the April 1978 issue (vol 12, no 2). It is by ME Chinnery.

It says that after Stoke the Act of Attainder against Lincoln
resulted not just in the confiscation of his pown possessions, but
the immediate confiscatin also of anything else he had stood to
inherit - ie the lands (but not the title) of his father the Duke of
Suffolk. "Henry left the duke and duchess a bare life pittance; the
de la Poles were ruined."
When the Duke died in 1491 the title passed to Edmund, who was still
a minor . "This son had been sent as a boy of nine to Oxford by his
uncle Edward IV, where we came in for some fairly fulsome praise from
the authorities: 'penetrating, eloquent, brilliant genius, learning
almost by inspiration' - but from his own letters his education would
seem to have been defctive." I wonder if the answer isn't that two
sons have been confused - Edmund, the archdeacon, who died in 1485
and is much more likely to have been sent to Oxford, and the
defectively-educated Duke Edmund. A later comment by the author makes
it clear that he/she is unaware that Edward had died in 1485, but
does confirm that he was a priest.
Other information about Edward's background given by Chinnery is that
he was created KB at Richard III's coronation, attended the
coronation of Elizabeth of York and was often at court both before
and after Lincoln's attainder. In 1489 he went with the Earl of Derby
(you-know-who) to Flanders to aid Maximilian against the French. In
1492 he went with Henry's mock expedition to France.
26 Feb 1493 Henry and Duke Edmund signed an agreement whereby Edmund
got back the de la Pole estates in Hull and Myton, but was demoted to
Earl of Suffolk (his income being below the set limit for a duke).
Henry charged the impoverished Edmund £5,000 "for this grace; . .
howbeit as great a sum, and as much more, should pertain to his Grace
for fines etc. . . " The arrangement was confirmed by a statute of
1496 which also gave Edmund back the family's London mansion "in the
parish of St Laurence Pulteney".
In 1497 Edmund helped Henry put down the Cornish rebellion.
Unfortunately, for the next bit Chinnery seems to rely on later Tudor
sources. So according to Speed, Edmund slew a "mean person" who had
insulted him, and "Henry, not sorry to have occasion of increasing
his popularity by presenting so great a person to examplary justice,
and in the same act blemish the honour of a man whose quality was to
him suspected, caused him to be arraigned for the same." Edmund stood
trial, but was pardoned in return for a guilty plea. The humiliated
Earl went to visit Aunt Margaret in Flanders, then returned to court
and "played a brilliant part" at the marriage festivities of Prince
Arthur. Then he withdrew to Flanders again without royal permission,
taking with him his youngest brother Richard. Henry sent Sir Robert
Curson to worm his way into Edmund's confidence, pretending to have
deserted the King. Curson obtained sufficient evidence of treasonable
intentions for Henry to have Edmund solemnly cursed by papal bull at
Paul's Cross. Then he was attainted and Henry got back the rest of
the de la Pole estates. Nice one!
"Outlawed and in poverty, Edmond and Richard sought shelter with the
Duke of Burgundy. The latter [I think the author means Richard de la
Pole, not Burgundy] was driven by a storm at sea on to the English
coast at Weymouth and was not released until he had promised to
surrender Edmond to Henry, on the understanding that there would be
no loss of life. With this assurance Edmond was inveigled to set out
for England by some specious message. Taken prisoner at Dover he was
hurried to the Tower where he was kept in close confinement, with no
contact with the outside world, until the fourth year of the reign of
Henry VIII, when, under the pretence that his continued existence
threatened the very state, he was beheaded on Tower Hill om 30 April
1513. . . His widow was granted his remains and she interred them in
the House of the Minoresses without Aldgate, London, where his only
daughter was a nun."
Richard remained abroad and became a soldier of fortune, "and served
with great distinction in the French wars as captain of the
Lansquenets, assisting at the siege of Therouanne when it was
besieged by the English under Henry VIII. This is the most likely
cause, so Dugdale (among others) says, why Henry had no hesitation in
executing Edmond on the eve of the expedition.
"By the lingering remnants of the House of York on the continent
Richard was known as "The White Rose of England" and called Duke of
Suffolk to the very end. In his twelve years abroad he was highly
esteemed by Francis I of France, who rode into Paris at his left side
and the Duke of Albany on his right. Richard went back with Regent
Albany to Scotland and took part, it is believed, in the unsuccessful
attempt on Wark Castle. The French kings were loyal to him, refusing
all attempts by Henry VIII to have him handed over.
"To what end? He escaped several plots for his capture and lived an
honourable life in the land of his adoption until he was killed
fighting for France at the Battle of Pavia, 24 February 1525. So
gallent was he that his enemy the Duke of Bourbon honoured his
remains with a splendid funeral, with himself as the chief mourner.
"Out of the Duke of Suffolk's five sons [my list has seven, but
evidently William dying 1535 looks suspect as he would have been
called 'Duke of Suffolk, not Richard], two were priests and only one
of the others, Edmond, had any children (a daughter who was a nun).
One must, therefore, admit a real possibility of the line's dying out
even without the assistance of the Tudors."
To that I would just add that perhaps Lincoln woud never have
fathered any children, but Edmund may have had more, and Richard
would surely have married had circumstances been more favourable.

Sorry this is so long.

Marie

This is fantastic as you have the sisters' names included. I shall discuss it with my source and report developments.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: News since Sunday


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I have a definitive list, from my usual source:
> >
> > Father: Richard, Duke of Suffolk d.1491
> > First: John, Earl of Lincoln 1462-87
> > Second: Edward d.1485
>
> Just a quick look at my notes, says Edward was an archdeacon and
> died "before 8 October 1485" - I take it that is the date of the
> inquisition post mortem or whatever. Looks more likely that he died
> of the sweating sickness than at Bosworth. There was a recent
article
> on the fortunes of the de la Poles after Bosworth in Blanc
Sanglier,
> the Yorkshire's Branch's mag. It may be viewable online, but if not
> I'll hunt it out.
>
> Marie

Hello me,

Just to start, the family tree I have for the de la Pole children
names:

1. Lincoln 1462/4-1487
2. Edward, the archdeacon, d. 1485
3. Edward, 1472-1513
4. Humphrey, 1 August 1474- 15 February 1513 (a priest)
5. William 1478-1539
6. Geoffrey
7. Richard, d. 24 February 1525, battle of Pavia
8. Katherine, married William Lord Stourton (1457-1524)
9. Elizabeth, married Henry Lovell Lord Morley (d after 1489 aged 51)
10. Anne
11. One other daughter





The article in Blanc Sanglier was in the December 2002 issue (vol 37
no 1), but apparently an expanded version of the same article
appeated in the April 1978 issue (vol 12, no 2). It is by ME Chinnery.

It says that after Stoke the Act of Attainder against Lincoln
resulted not just in the confiscation of his pown possessions, but
the immediate confiscatin also of anything else he had stood to
inherit - ie the lands (but not the title) of his father the Duke of
Suffolk. "Henry left the duke and duchess a bare life pittance; the
de la Poles were ruined."
When the Duke died in 1491 the title passed to Edmund, who was still
a minor . "This son had been sent as a boy of nine to Oxford by his
uncle Edward IV, where we came in for some fairly fulsome praise from
the authorities: 'penetrating, eloquent, brilliant genius, learning
almost by inspiration' - but from his own letters his education would
seem to have been defctive." I wonder if the answer isn't that two
sons have been confused - Edmund, the archdeacon, who died in 1485
and is much more likely to have been sent to Oxford, and the
defectively-educated Duke Edmund. A later comment by the author makes
it clear that he/she is unaware that Edward had died in 1485, but
does confirm that he was a priest.
Other information about Edward's background given by Chinnery is that
he was created KB at Richard III's coronation, attended the
coronation of Elizabeth of York and was often at court both before
and after Lincoln's attainder. In 1489 he went with the Earl of Derby
(you-know-who) to Flanders to aid Maximilian against the French. In
1492 he went with Henry's mock expedition to France.
26 Feb 1493 Henry and Duke Edmund signed an agreement whereby Edmund
got back the de la Pole estates in Hull and Myton, but was demoted to
Earl of Suffolk (his income being below the set limit for a duke).
Henry charged the impoverished Edmund £5,000 "for this grace; . .
howbeit as great a sum, and as much more, should pertain to his Grace
for fines etc. . . " The arrangement was confirmed by a statute of
1496 which also gave Edmund back the family's London mansion "in the
parish of St Laurence Pulteney".
In 1497 Edmund helped Henry put down the Cornish rebellion.
Unfortunately, for the next bit Chinnery seems to rely on later Tudor
sources. So according to Speed, Edmund slew a "mean person" who had
insulted him, and "Henry, not sorry to have occasion of increasing
his popularity by presenting so great a person to examplary justice,
and in the same act blemish the honour of a man whose quality was to
him suspected, caused him to be arraigned for the same." Edmund stood
trial, but was pardoned in return for a guilty plea. The humiliated
Earl went to visit Aunt Margaret in Flanders, then returned to court
and "played a brilliant part" at the marriage festivities of Prince
Arthur. Then he withdrew to Flanders again without royal permission,
taking with him his youngest brother Richard. Henry sent Sir Robert
Curson to worm his way into Edmund's confidence, pretending to have
deserted the King. Curson obtained sufficient evidence of treasonable
intentions for Henry to have Edmund solemnly cursed by papal bull at
Paul's Cross. Then he was attainted and Henry got back the rest of
the de la Pole estates. Nice one!
"Outlawed and in poverty, Edmond and Richard sought shelter with the
Duke of Burgundy. The latter [I think the author means Richard de la
Pole, not Burgundy] was driven by a storm at sea on to the English
coast at Weymouth and was not released until he had promised to
surrender Edmond to Henry, on the understanding that there would be
no loss of life. With this assurance Edmond was inveigled to set out
for England by some specious message. Taken prisoner at Dover he was
hurried to the Tower where he was kept in close confinement, with no
contact with the outside world, until the fourth year of the reign of
Henry VIII, when, under the pretence that his continued existence
threatened the very state, he was beheaded on Tower Hill om 30 April
1513. . . His widow was granted his remains and she interred them in
the House of the Minoresses without Aldgate, London, where his only
daughter was a nun."
Richard remained abroad and became a soldier of fortune, "and served
with great distinction in the French wars as captain of the
Lansquenets, assisting at the siege of Therouanne when it was
besieged by the English under Henry VIII. This is the most likely
cause, so Dugdale (among others) says, why Henry had no hesitation in
executing Edmond on the eve of the expedition.
"By the lingering remnants of the House of York on the continent
Richard was known as "The White Rose of England" and called Duke of
Suffolk to the very end. In his twelve years abroad he was highly
esteemed by Francis I of France, who rode into Paris at his left side
and the Duke of Albany on his right. Richard went back with Regent
Albany to Scotland and took part, it is believed, in the unsuccessful
attempt on Wark Castle. The French kings were loyal to him, refusing
all attempts by Henry VIII to have him handed over.
"To what end? He escaped several plots for his capture and lived an
honourable life in the land of his adoption until he was killed
fighting for France at the Battle of Pavia, 24 February 1525. So
gallent was he that his enemy the Duke of Bourbon honoured his
remains with a splendid funeral, with himself as the chief mourner.
"Out of the Duke of Suffolk's five sons [my list has seven, but
evidently William dying 1535 looks suspect as he would have been
called 'Duke of Suffolk, not Richard], two were priests and only one
of the others, Edmond, had any children (a daughter who was a nun).
One must, therefore, admit a real possibility of the line's dying out
even without the assistance of the Tudors."
To that I would just add that perhaps Lincoln woud never have
fathered any children, but Edmund may have had more, and Richard
would surely have married had circumstances been more favourable.

Sorry this is so long.

Marie




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> This is fantastic as you have the sisters' names included. I shall
discuss it with my source and report developments.

Some of it is perhaps suspect. For instance, I have William as
marrying a Katherine Stourton and Katherine as marrying a William
Lord Stourton! However, the names of the two "extra" sons, William
and Geoffrey, do sound plausible as the father, John Duke of Suffolk,
was the son of Duke William and Alice Chaucer. I have a feeling one
of the sisters was a nun (Abbess of Barking?), or am I thinking of
somebody else?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > This is fantastic as you have the sisters' names included. I
shall
> discuss it with my source and report developments.
>
> Some of it is perhaps suspect. For instance, I have William as
> marrying a Katherine Stourton and Katherine as marrying a William
> Lord Stourton! However, the names of the two "extra" sons, William
> and Geoffrey, do sound plausible as the father, John Duke of
Suffolk,
> was the son of Duke William and Alice Chaucer. I have a feeling one
> of the sisters was a nun (Abbess of Barking?), or am I thinking of
> somebody else?
>
> Marie

I have a suggestion, that my Group Chairman is to put at a Society
meeting next month, that the victims of Tudor oppression be
commemorated on an appropriate date. Earl Edmund's quincentenary is,
as I now know, 30 April 2013.
Incidentally, your information may just be accurate - remember,
Richard and Clarence married sisters.
Furthermore, having read about Warbeck and Thomas Stafford, do you
cringe at some clown using the word "gutted" metaphorically?

Stephen

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > > I have a definitive list, from my usual source:
> > >
> > > Father: Richard, Duke of Suffolk d.1491
> > > First: John, Earl of Lincoln 1462-87
> > > Second: Edward d.1485
> >
> > Just a quick look at my notes, says Edward was an archdeacon and
> > died "before 8 October 1485" - I take it that is the date of the
> > inquisition post mortem or whatever. Looks more likely that he
died
> > of the sweating sickness than at Bosworth. There was a recent
> article
> > on the fortunes of the de la Poles after Bosworth in Blanc
> Sanglier,
> > the Yorkshire's Branch's mag. It may be viewable online, but if
not
> > I'll hunt it out.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Hello me,
>
> Just to start, the family tree I have for the de la Pole children
> names:
>
> 1. Lincoln 1462/4-1487
> 2. Edward, the archdeacon, d. 1485
> 3. Edward, 1472-1513
> 4. Humphrey, 1 August 1474- 15 February 1513 (a priest)
> 5. William 1478-1539
> 6. Geoffrey
> 7. Richard, d. 24 February 1525, battle of Pavia
> 8. Katherine, married William Lord Stourton (1457-1524)
> 9. Elizabeth, married Henry Lovell Lord Morley (d after 1489 aged
51)
> 10. Anne
> 11. One other daughter
>
>
>
>
>
> The article in Blanc Sanglier was in the December 2002 issue (vol
37
> no 1), but apparently an expanded version of the same article
> appeated in the April 1978 issue (vol 12, no 2). It is by ME
Chinnery.
>
> It says that after Stoke the Act of Attainder against Lincoln
> resulted not just in the confiscation of his pown possessions, but
> the immediate confiscatin also of anything else he had stood to
> inherit - ie the lands (but not the title) of his father the Duke
of
> Suffolk. "Henry left the duke and duchess a bare life pittance; the
> de la Poles were ruined."
> When the Duke died in 1491 the title passed to Edmund, who was
still
> a minor . "This son had been sent as a boy of nine to Oxford by his
> uncle Edward IV, where we came in for some fairly fulsome praise
from
> the authorities: 'penetrating, eloquent, brilliant genius, learning
> almost by inspiration' - but from his own letters his education
would
> seem to have been defctive." I wonder if the answer isn't that two
> sons have been confused - Edmund, the archdeacon, who died in 1485
> and is much more likely to have been sent to Oxford, and the
> defectively-educated Duke Edmund. A later comment by the author
makes
> it clear that he/she is unaware that Edward had died in 1485, but
> does confirm that he was a priest.
> Other information about Edward's background given by Chinnery is
that
> he was created KB at Richard III's coronation, attended the
> coronation of Elizabeth of York and was often at court both before
> and after Lincoln's attainder. In 1489 he went with the Earl of
Derby
> (you-know-who) to Flanders to aid Maximilian against the French. In
> 1492 he went with Henry's mock expedition to France.
> 26 Feb 1493 Henry and Duke Edmund signed an agreement whereby
Edmund
> got back the de la Pole estates in Hull and Myton, but was demoted
to
> Earl of Suffolk (his income being below the set limit for a
duke).
> Henry charged the impoverished Edmund £5,000 "for this grace; . .
> howbeit as great a sum, and as much more, should pertain to his
Grace
> for fines etc. . . " The arrangement was confirmed by a statute of
> 1496 which also gave Edmund back the family's London mansion "in
the
> parish of St Laurence Pulteney".
> In 1497 Edmund helped Henry put down the Cornish rebellion.
> Unfortunately, for the next bit Chinnery seems to rely on later
Tudor
> sources. So according to Speed, Edmund slew a "mean person" who had
> insulted him, and "Henry, not sorry to have occasion of increasing
> his popularity by presenting so great a person to examplary
justice,
> and in the same act blemish the honour of a man whose quality was
to
> him suspected, caused him to be arraigned for the same." Edmund
stood
> trial, but was pardoned in return for a guilty plea. The humiliated
> Earl went to visit Aunt Margaret in Flanders, then returned to
court
> and "played a brilliant part" at the marriage festivities of Prince
> Arthur. Then he withdrew to Flanders again without royal
permission,
> taking with him his youngest brother Richard. Henry sent Sir Robert
> Curson to worm his way into Edmund's confidence, pretending to have
> deserted the King. Curson obtained sufficient evidence of
treasonable
> intentions for Henry to have Edmund solemnly cursed by papal bull
at
> Paul's Cross. Then he was attainted and Henry got back the rest of
> the de la Pole estates. Nice one!
> "Outlawed and in poverty, Edmond and Richard sought shelter with
the
> Duke of Burgundy. The latter [I think the author means Richard de
la
> Pole, not Burgundy] was driven by a storm at sea on to the English
> coast at Weymouth and was not released until he had promised to
> surrender Edmond to Henry, on the understanding that there would be
> no loss of life. With this assurance Edmond was inveigled to set
out
> for England by some specious message. Taken prisoner at Dover he
was
> hurried to the Tower where he was kept in close confinement, with
no
> contact with the outside world, until the fourth year of the reign
of
> Henry VIII, when, under the pretence that his continued existence
> threatened the very state, he was beheaded on Tower Hill om 30
April
> 1513. . . His widow was granted his remains and she interred them
in
> the House of the Minoresses without Aldgate, London, where his only
> daughter was a nun."
> Richard remained abroad and became a soldier of fortune, "and
served
> with great distinction in the French wars as captain of the
> Lansquenets, assisting at the siege of Therouanne when it was
> besieged by the English under Henry VIII. This is the most likely
> cause, so Dugdale (among others) says, why Henry had no hesitation
in
> executing Edmond on the eve of the expedition.
> "By the lingering remnants of the House of York on the continent
> Richard was known as "The White Rose of England" and called Duke of
> Suffolk to the very end. In his twelve years abroad he was highly
> esteemed by Francis I of France, who rode into Paris at his left
side
> and the Duke of Albany on his right. Richard went back with Regent
> Albany to Scotland and took part, it is believed, in the
unsuccessful
> attempt on Wark Castle. The French kings were loyal to him,
refusing
> all attempts by Henry VIII to have him handed over.
> "To what end? He escaped several plots for his capture and lived an
> honourable life in the land of his adoption until he was killed
> fighting for France at the Battle of Pavia, 24 February 1525. So
> gallent was he that his enemy the Duke of Bourbon honoured his
> remains with a splendid funeral, with himself as the chief mourner.
> "Out of the Duke of Suffolk's five sons [my list has seven, but
> evidently William dying 1535 looks suspect as he would have been
> called 'Duke of Suffolk, not Richard], two were priests and only
one
> of the others, Edmond, had any children (a daughter who was a nun).
> One must, therefore, admit a real possibility of the line's dying
out
> even without the assistance of the Tudors."
> To that I would just add that perhaps Lincoln woud never have
> fathered any children, but Edmund may have had more, and Richard
> would surely have married had circumstances been more favourable.
>
> Sorry this is so long.
>
> Marie

I have been in touch with my usual source and can detail the de la
Pole sisters as follows:
1) Jane (Stonor). Husband died in 1474 when the sisters' mother was
only thirty. Time to reproduce? Probably not, on balance.
2) Elizabeth (Lady Morley). Definitely childless.
3) Dorothy. A spinster.
4) Anne. A nun.
5) Catherine (Stourton, 1457-1524). Definitely childless.

So, including the six or seven brothers, we have an archdeacon, a
priest, a nun and one other spinster. A subsequent generation
consists of Anne (daughter of Edmund, another nun) and improbable
Stonor children.
However, the received wisdom was similarly gloomy about the Clarence
line a year ago, then came Jones' revelations about Catherine Pole
and the Hastings line, also our discoveries of Ursula's nine
Staffords.

> > > > >
> > Just to start, the family tree I have for the de la Pole children
> > names:
> >
> > 1. Lincoln 1462/4-1487
> > 2. Edward, the archdeacon, d. 1485
> > 3. Edward, 1472-1513
> > 4. Humphrey, 1 August 1474- 15 February 1513 (a priest)
> > 5. William 1478-1539
> > 6. Geoffrey
> > 7. Richard, d. 24 February 1525, battle of Pavia
> > 8. Katherine, married William Lord Stourton (1457-1524)
> > 9. Elizabeth, married Henry Lovell Lord Morley (d after 1489 aged
> 51)
> > 10. Anne
> > 11. One other daughter

Thanks very much indeed for that, Stephen. I'll add it to my info.
That's good because I was sure one of the daughters was a nun but I
couldn't find the evidence. Am I dreaming that she might have been
Abbess of Barking, or was that somebody else? Just a thought - Jane
must have been very young when she was widowed - any chance she may
have married again?

Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The article in Blanc Sanglier was in the December 2002 issue (vol
> 37
> > no 1), but apparently an expanded version of the same article
> > appeated in the April 1978 issue (vol 12, no 2). It is by ME
> Chinnery.
> >
> > It says that after Stoke the Act of Attainder against Lincoln
> > resulted not just in the confiscation of his pown possessions,
but
> > the immediate confiscatin also of anything else he had stood to
> > inherit - ie the lands (but not the title) of his father the Duke
> of
> > Suffolk. "Henry left the duke and duchess a bare life pittance;
the
> > de la Poles were ruined."
> > When the Duke died in 1491 the title passed to Edmund, who was
> still
> > a minor . "This son had been sent as a boy of nine to Oxford by
his
> > uncle Edward IV, where we came in for some fairly fulsome praise
> from
> > the authorities: 'penetrating, eloquent, brilliant genius,
learning
> > almost by inspiration' - but from his own letters his education
> would
> > seem to have been defctive." I wonder if the answer isn't that
two
> > sons have been confused - Edmund, the archdeacon, who died in
1485
> > and is much more likely to have been sent to Oxford, and the
> > defectively-educated Duke Edmund. A later comment by the author
> makes
> > it clear that he/she is unaware that Edward had died in 1485, but
> > does confirm that he was a priest.
> > Other information about Edward's background given by Chinnery is
> that
> > he was created KB at Richard III's coronation, attended the
> > coronation of Elizabeth of York and was often at court both
before
> > and after Lincoln's attainder. In 1489 he went with the Earl of
> Derby
> > (you-know-who) to Flanders to aid Maximilian against the French.
In
> > 1492 he went with Henry's mock expedition to France.
> > 26 Feb 1493 Henry and Duke Edmund signed an agreement whereby
> Edmund
> > got back the de la Pole estates in Hull and Myton, but was
demoted
> to
> > Earl of Suffolk (his income being below the set limit for a
> duke).
> > Henry charged the impoverished Edmund £5,000 "for this grace; . .
> > howbeit as great a sum, and as much more, should pertain to his
> Grace
> > for fines etc. . . " The arrangement was confirmed by a statute
of
> > 1496 which also gave Edmund back the family's London mansion "in
> the
> > parish of St Laurence Pulteney".
> > In 1497 Edmund helped Henry put down the Cornish rebellion.
> > Unfortunately, for the next bit Chinnery seems to rely on later
> Tudor
> > sources. So according to Speed, Edmund slew a "mean person" who
had
> > insulted him, and "Henry, not sorry to have occasion of
increasing
> > his popularity by presenting so great a person to examplary
> justice,
> > and in the same act blemish the honour of a man whose quality was
> to
> > him suspected, caused him to be arraigned for the same." Edmund
> stood
> > trial, but was pardoned in return for a guilty plea. The
humiliated
> > Earl went to visit Aunt Margaret in Flanders, then returned to
> court
> > and "played a brilliant part" at the marriage festivities of
Prince
> > Arthur. Then he withdrew to Flanders again without royal
> permission,
> > taking with him his youngest brother Richard. Henry sent Sir
Robert
> > Curson to worm his way into Edmund's confidence, pretending to
have
> > deserted the King. Curson obtained sufficient evidence of
> treasonable
> > intentions for Henry to have Edmund solemnly cursed by papal bull
> at
> > Paul's Cross. Then he was attainted and Henry got back the rest
of
> > the de la Pole estates. Nice one!
> > "Outlawed and in poverty, Edmond and Richard sought shelter with
> the
> > Duke of Burgundy. The latter [I think the author means Richard de
> la
> > Pole, not Burgundy] was driven by a storm at sea on to the
English
> > coast at Weymouth and was not released until he had promised to
> > surrender Edmond to Henry, on the understanding that there would
be
> > no loss of life. With this assurance Edmond was inveigled to set
> out
> > for England by some specious message. Taken prisoner at Dover he
> was
> > hurried to the Tower where he was kept in close confinement, with
> no
> > contact with the outside world, until the fourth year of the
reign
> of
> > Henry VIII, when, under the pretence that his continued existence
> > threatened the very state, he was beheaded on Tower Hill om 30
> April
> > 1513. . . His widow was granted his remains and she interred them
> in
> > the House of the Minoresses without Aldgate, London, where his
only
> > daughter was a nun."
> > Richard remained abroad and became a soldier of fortune, "and
> served
> > with great distinction in the French wars as captain of the
> > Lansquenets, assisting at the siege of Therouanne when it was
> > besieged by the English under Henry VIII. This is the most likely
> > cause, so Dugdale (among others) says, why Henry had no
hesitation
> in
> > executing Edmond on the eve of the expedition.
> > "By the lingering remnants of the House of York on the continent
> > Richard was known as "The White Rose of England" and called Duke
of
> > Suffolk to the very end. In his twelve years abroad he was highly
> > esteemed by Francis I of France, who rode into Paris at his left
> side
> > and the Duke of Albany on his right. Richard went back with
Regent
> > Albany to Scotland and took part, it is believed, in the
> unsuccessful
> > attempt on Wark Castle. The French kings were loyal to him,
> refusing
> > all attempts by Henry VIII to have him handed over.
> > "To what end? He escaped several plots for his capture and lived
an
> > honourable life in the land of his adoption until he was killed
> > fighting for France at the Battle of Pavia, 24 February 1525. So
> > gallent was he that his enemy the Duke of Bourbon honoured his
> > remains with a splendid funeral, with himself as the chief
mourner.
> > "Out of the Duke of Suffolk's five sons [my list has seven, but
> > evidently William dying 1535 looks suspect as he would have been
> > called 'Duke of Suffolk, not Richard], two were priests and only
> one
> > of the others, Edmond, had any children (a daughter who was a
nun).
> > One must, therefore, admit a real possibility of the line's dying
> out
> > even without the assistance of the Tudors."
> > To that I would just add that perhaps Lincoln woud never have
> > fathered any children, but Edmund may have had more, and Richard
> > would surely have married had circumstances been more favourable.
> >
> > Sorry this is so long.
> >
> > Marie
>
> I have been in touch with my usual source and can detail the de la
> Pole sisters as follows:
> 1) Jane (Stonor). Husband died in 1474 when the sisters' mother was
> only thirty. Time to reproduce? Probably not, on balance.
> 2) Elizabeth (Lady Morley). Definitely childless.
> 3) Dorothy. A spinster.
> 4) Anne. A nun.
> 5) Catherine (Stourton, 1457-1524). Definitely childless.
>
> So, including the six or seven brothers, we have an archdeacon, a
> priest, a nun and one other spinster. A subsequent generation
> consists of Anne (daughter of Edmund, another nun) and improbable
> Stonor children.
> However, the received wisdom was similarly gloomy about the
Clarence
> line a year ago, then came Jones' revelations about Catherine Pole
> and the Hastings line, also our discoveries of Ursula's nine
> Staffords.