Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: de la Pole sisters (?)

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: de la Pole sisters (?)


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Marie et al:
>
> One Jane de la Pole definitely married Thomas Stonor, having three
sons, three daughters and possibly a seventh child. My source is
investigating the Stonors.
> The bad news is that she may be a SISTER of Richard (Duke of
Suffolk) not a daughter i.e. an aunt of Lincoln, not a sister, as the
dates (Elizabeth b. 1444, Stonor d. 1474) suggest, unless we have the
wrong Stonor.
> I would be delighted if your "Blanc Sanglier" article could
disprove our reservations, quoting the author. This would shatter
the "Lincoln's siblings only managed one child and she became a nun"
theory, much the same as Jones disproved the "Lady Margaret only had
one grandchild and he died in the Tower in 1542" theory.
>
> Stephen

Unfortunately it doesn't give any more info than I gave you before. I
did give the full details of the article, including author, I'm sure.

I donwnloaded relevant sections of DNB today, and I'm convinced the
author got most of the info from there, including misidentification
of Oxford prodigy as Earl Edmund. I see from Bennett that it was
indeed the clerical Edward who was the Oxford don.
I've also ascertained that the de la Pole Abbess of Barking was
Lincoln's great-aunt Katherine, not his sister Anne.

Have you tried the Complete Peerage? That very often gives complete
lists of peers' children, and is a much better source for this sort
of thing than the DNB. Also, Burkes' Gentry might give the Stonor
line. An edition of the Stonor Papers themselves might be worth a
look - even if nothing in the papers, there may be in the
introduction or notes.

Best of luck,

Marie


The site I have found is "Elizabethan peerage 1" or www.tudorplace.com.ar/Peerage1. It is dynamite and it appeals to my sense of humour to use a "Tudor" website for our purposes.

>
>


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.

>>
> Unfortunately it doesn't give any more info than I gave you
before. I
> did give the full details of the article, including author, I'm
sure.
>
> I donwnloaded relevant sections of DNB today, and I'm convinced
the
> author got most of the info from there, including
misidentification
> of Oxford prodigy as Earl Edmund. I see from Bennett that it was
> indeed the clerical Edward who was the Oxford don.
> I've also ascertained that the de la Pole Abbess of Barking was
> Lincoln's great-aunt Katherine, not his sister Anne.
>
> Have you tried the Complete Peerage? That very often gives
complete
> lists of peers' children, and is a much better source for this
sort
> of thing than the DNB. Also, Burkes' Gentry might give the Stonor
> line. An edition of the Stonor Papers themselves might be worth a
> look - even if nothing in the papers, there may be in the
> introduction or notes.
>
> Best of luck,
>
> Marie
>
>
> The site I have found is "Elizabethan peerage 1" or
www.tudorplace.com.ar/Peerage1. It is dynamite and it appeals to my
sense of humour to use a "Tudor" website for our purposes.

I've just had a look at the site, thanks very much for the tip, and
it is fantastic, although the de la Pole link wasn't working for me.
I do still highly recommend backing it up with the other sources,
though, particularly if it is for an article or something rather than
pure private interest. You can't be too careful with second-hand
sources. I must admit two things bother me slightly about Jane:
a) She wasn't on my list at all;
b) the name Jane had not really come into fashion at this point, and
that is even more of a problem if she was a generation older.
Certainly, if there were any such marriage it would surely be
mentioned in the Stonor Papers.

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.
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: de la Pole sisters (?)


>>
> Unfortunately it doesn't give any more info than I gave you
before. I
> did give the full details of the article, including author, I'm
sure.
>
> I donwnloaded relevant sections of DNB today, and I'm convinced
the
> author got most of the info from there, including
misidentification
> of Oxford prodigy as Earl Edmund. I see from Bennett that it was
> indeed the clerical Edward who was the Oxford don.
> I've also ascertained that the de la Pole Abbess of Barking was
> Lincoln's great-aunt Katherine, not his sister Anne.
>
> Have you tried the Complete Peerage? That very often gives
complete
> lists of peers' children, and is a much better source for this
sort
> of thing than the DNB. Also, Burkes' Gentry might give the Stonor
> line. An edition of the Stonor Papers themselves might be worth a
> look - even if nothing in the papers, there may be in the
> introduction or notes.
>
> Best of luck,
>
> Marie
>
>
> The site I have found is "Elizabethan peerage 1" or
www.tudorplace.com.ar/Peerage1. It is dynamite and it appeals to my
sense of humour to use a "Tudor" website for our purposes.

I've just had a look at the site, thanks very much for the tip, and
it is fantastic, although the de la Pole link wasn't working for me.
I do still highly recommend backing it up with the other sources,
though, particularly if it is for an article or something rather than
pure private interest. You can't be too careful with second-hand
sources. I must admit two things bother me slightly about Jane:
a) She wasn't on my list at all;
b) the name Jane had not really come into fashion at this point, and
that is even more of a problem if she was a generation older.
Certainly, if there were any such marriage it would surely be
mentioned in the Stonor Papers.

Marie

Yes, this website doesn't mention Jane, which is bad news for either the website or her. I found it through the DNB, looking for Thomas Stafford. I read only one new fact about him, that he claimed the title of Protector. Did he think Mary was incompetent because of her religion or her gender? Had his exploits taken place six years later he would have inherited his father's Barony by then.
Did you read the five page biography of Lady Margaret {/Bios/MargaretPole(CSalisbury).htm}? It ends "Chalk up another judicial murder for Bluff King Hal". Jorge may be very interested in the Tudors but he is detached from them (something Weir could learn)
Intriguingly, Clarence is given two extra children, Anne (b/d 1470) and Richard (1476- 1 Jan 1477). His existence suggests that Isabel Neville died in childbirth.
"Elizabethan peerage 1" does list Elizabeth de la Pole's children but their own entries are missing. I tried other ways: navigate through the Staffords, one of whom married the first Duke of Suffolk; take Lady Margaret back two generations and then down two to her cousins; or try STONOR under the gentry but they all failed. Perhaps Jorge has the same problems as us.
Oh, before I forget it, Francis (Earl of Huntingdon) and Sir Thomas Hastings (his brother) did a "Richard and Clarence" byt marrying sisters: Catherine and Winifred Pole. The latter was childless and she remarried a Barrington.

Stephen

>
> >
> >
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>



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:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:58 PM
> Subject: Re: de la Pole sisters (?)
>
>
> >>
> > Unfortunately it doesn't give any more info than I gave you
> before. I
> > did give the full details of the article, including author,
I'm
> sure.
> >
> > I donwnloaded relevant sections of DNB today, and I'm
convinced
> the
> > author got most of the info from there, including
> misidentification
> > of Oxford prodigy as Earl Edmund. I see from Bennett that it
was
> > indeed the clerical Edward who was the Oxford don.
> > I've also ascertained that the de la Pole Abbess of Barking
was
> > Lincoln's great-aunt Katherine, not his sister Anne.
> >
> > Have you tried the Complete Peerage? That very often gives
> complete
> > lists of peers' children, and is a much better source for
this
> sort
> > of thing than the DNB. Also, Burkes' Gentry might give the
Stonor
> > line. An edition of the Stonor Papers themselves might be
worth a
> > look - even if nothing in the papers, there may be in the
> > introduction or notes.
> >
> > Best of luck,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > The site I have found is "Elizabethan peerage 1" or
> www.tudorplace.com.ar/Peerage1. It is dynamite and it appeals to
my
> sense of humour to use a "Tudor" website for our purposes.
>
> I've just had a look at the site, thanks very much for the tip,
and
> it is fantastic, although the de la Pole link wasn't working for
me.
> I do still highly recommend backing it up with the other sources,
> though, particularly if it is for an article or something rather
than
> pure private interest. You can't be too careful with second-hand
> sources. I must admit two things bother me slightly about Jane:
> a) She wasn't on my list at all;
> b) the name Jane had not really come into fashion at this point,
and
> that is even more of a problem if she was a generation older.
> Certainly, if there were any such marriage it would surely be
> mentioned in the Stonor Papers.
>
> Marie
>
> Yes, this website doesn't mention Jane, which is bad news for
either the website or her. I found it through the DNB, looking for
Thomas Stafford. I read only one new fact about him, that he claimed
the title of Protector. Did he think Mary was incompetent because of
her religion or her gender? Had his exploits taken place six years
later he would have inherited his father's Barony by then.
> Did you read the five page biography of Lady Margaret
{/Bios/MargaretPole(CSalisbury).htm}? It ends "Chalk up another
judicial murder for Bluff King Hal". Jorge may be very interested in
the Tudors but he is detached from them (something Weir could learn)
> Intriguingly, Clarence is given two extra children, Anne (b/d
1470) and Richard (1476- 1 Jan 1477). His existence suggests that
Isabel Neville died in childbirth.

My information is that there were four children born but only one
girl, and that was Margaret. The first was the baby born dead on
board ship in 1470 and buried at sea - that was a boy. Then there was
Margaret, born 14 August 1473, then Edward, born February 1475, then
Richard, born 6 October 1476 in Tewkesbury Abbey, died 1 January
1476/7. Isabel herself died back at Warwick on 22 December 1476.
Tewkesbury monks chronicle the cause of Isabel's death as childbirth
fever, and this seems highly likely. According to the testimony at
Ankarette Twynyho's trial, she gave the Duchess a herbal drink four
days, I think, after the birth, and she started to sicken after that.
Entirely consistent with septicaemia - localised infection in uterus
being the start, with blood poisoning and resultant general illness
following on.
There would, of course, be room to fit another child between the
first, stillborn, one and Margaret - where does your man say Anne
came in?

Marie

PS I wonder what they would have named that first son? Not Edward at
that time, evidently. George?

>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> ----------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 , "mariewalsh2003" >
> My information is that there were four children born but only one
> girl, and that was Margaret. The first was the baby born dead on
> board ship in 1470 and buried at sea - that was a boy. Then there
was
> Margaret, born 14 August 1473, then Edward, born February 1475,
then
> Richard, born 6 October 1476 in Tewkesbury Abbey, died 1 January
> 1476/7. Isabel herself died back at Warwick on 22 December 1476.
> Tewkesbury monks chronicle the cause of Isabel's death as
childbirth
> fever, and this seems highly likely. According to the testimony at
> Ankarette Twynyho's trial, she gave the Duchess a herbal drink four
> days, I think, after the birth, and she started to sicken after
that.
> Entirely consistent with septicaemia - localised infection in
uterus
> being the start, with blood poisoning and resultant general illness
> following on.
> There would, of course, be room to fit another child between the
> first, stillborn, one and Margaret - where does your man say Anne
> came in?
>
> Marie
>
> PS I wonder what they would have named that first son? Not Edward
at
> that time, evidently. George?



Naming him after one of the Duke of York's short-lived sons -- John,
William, Thomas -- would have been safe.

Katy

----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole sisters (?)


--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <>
I've also ascertained that the de la Pole Abbess of Barking was
> Lincoln's great-aunt Katherine, not his sister Anne.

I now have the proper info on the de la Pole sister Anne who was a
nun, from Cecily Neville's will, viz after bequests to "my son of
Suffolk", "my son [sic - she refers to all her grandchildren as 'son'
or 'daughter'] Humfrey", she goes on: "Also I geue to my doughter
Anne Priores of Sion a boke of Bonaventure and Hilton in the same in
englishe and a book of the Revelacions of saint Burgitte".


Sion, of course, was the religious house at Brentford, Middlesex,
much patronised by the Yorkists (Cecily had a long-standing interest
in the house); granted to the Percys after the Dissolution. I've got
a feeling Edward IV's nunly daughter Brigit was also at Sion (Bridget
got left Cecily's copy of the Legenda Aurea ['Golden Legend'], Life
of St Katherine of Sienna and book of St Matilde [the last being
thought to have been, possibly, the same copy once owned by Richard
and Anne, which has Anne Neville's signature in].)

Marie

This is good. At first light, it seems that Cicely's habit (sorry) of collapsing her descendants into one generation leaves the nun's identity unclear: is it her granddaughter Anne or her great-granddaughter (Edmund's daughter), reputedly of the same name and occupation. Some people feel that they did not both exist.
However, Cicely died in 1495 and Edmund was only born in 1472 so his daughter could not have been a nun at the time of Cecily's will. It definitely means Anne, sister of Lincoln, Edmund, Richard et al.


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.