Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Bear with me, folks, but I've done some digging again, and here are some things I found very interesting - relating to the region surrounding Wayland Wood, of the 'Babes in the Wood' fame.

There was, of course, Sir William Knyvett - right at the centre of this folk legend, at Griston Hall, on the edge of Wayland Wood. Like I already said, he was Buckingham's co-conspirator, was attainted by Richard, supported Tudor, and then did well under the Tudor regime. His second wife was Joan Stafford, Buckingham's aunt. His third wife was Joan Courtenay, the widow of Sir Roger Clifford who was executed in 1485.

But the Knyvetts aren't the only interesting people living in the vicinity. There were also:

- Sir Edmund Bedingfield of Oxburgh, 14 miles from Wayland Wood. Very close associate of the Earl of Oxford. His family did really well in the Tudor era.

- Southwells of Woodrising, about 5 miles from Wayland Wood. Close associates of the Knyvetts. This family also prospered in the Tudor era: the well-known statesman Richard Southwell was one of them.

- John Radcliffe, Lord FitzWalter, of Attleborough, about 9 miles from Wayland Wood. It's hard to figure him out. He was a Tudor supporter, made a Knight of the Bath in October 1485, and did very well under Henry VII - at first. But he was a major figure of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1496, and that's where things get REALLY interesting.

Let's look at some of the key figures of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy:

- Lord FitzWalter, above.

- Robert Radcliffe, same family.

- Thomas Cressener of Morley, about 10 miles from Wayland Wood. Nephew of the above Radcliffes.

- Thomas Thwaites, whose son had been in William Knyvett's service in the 1480s and been married to William Knyvett's daughter.

- Sir Robert Clifford (who, as we know, betrayed these conspirators and was probably a Tudor spy). William Knyvett was married to his brother's widow, and Knyvett's daughter married Charles Clifford, who was either Robert's son or nephew.

Isn't it interesting how this particular region - and William Knyvett - is at the very centre of things? Did these supporters of Perkin Warbeck know or guess that Edward V was dead (and perhaps buried somewhere close by - even at Griston Church?) but Richard of York had gone missing?

Then there were also:

- William (de) Grey of Merton, about 2 miles from Wayland Wood. His first wife was Edmund Bedingfield's sister, but I don't know how closely he was connected to the Earl of Oxford through his brother-in-law and whether he actually supported Tudor or not. He seems to have died in 1495 - coincidentally or not, who knows. (William Grey's widow Grace married Humphrey Catesby - son of John Catesby and Elizabeth Greene, and thus related to 'our' Catesby and kinsman of the other Katherine Haute.)

- Calthorpes of Burnham Thorpe - about 30 miles to the north not from Wayland Wood, so not especially close, BUT close associates of Knyvetts, Southwells, et al. and connected by marriage to many key figures of the early Tudor era. Interestingly, two Calthorpe daughters were married into families that supported Perkin Warbeck and Lincoln (John Cressener and William Curson, respectively) and both were quickly married off to William Knyvett's sons after they were widowed.

- Sir Henry Grey of Ketteringham, about 15 miles from Wayland Wood. He was a kinsman and close associate of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk. He was related (brother, cousin, I don't know) to both the Thomas Grey who was the first husband of Richard's aunt Isabel of York, and the other Thomas Grey who married Richard's other aunt Alice Neville! Sir Henry was an old man by this time, but it doesn't mean he and the people around him wouldn't have heard something&

- Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham, about 13 miles from Wayland Wood. I don't know what his connection is (if any) to those Berkeleys who supported Tudor.

Lastly, remember the 'John Dighton' who was claimed to have been one of the murderers of the two boys? I think it was Markham who said that there was a Dighton/Dyghton living in Calais who was rumoured to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, and Henry made use of that rumour, but Dyghton never suffered any consequences for his supposed crime and may actually have been a priest. (Or something like that. I can't quite remember the details just now.) Well, I don't know if John Dyghton had anything at all to do with the disappearance, but as it happens, there was a Dyghton family of freeholders living at Methwold - 15 miles from Wayland Wood.

Pansy

In which connection also you might care to look at Sir Simon Montfort, a former retainer of Lord Hastings, who was HDQ for his participation in the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy (which I haven't studied at all). He was a second cousin to our Sir Humphrey Catesby whose grandmother was a Mountfort(Montfort). It was always assumed that he went over to the dark side because of disputes about the inheritance but ..... H (who is chasing Stillington and the Twynyhos round Yorkshire and Somerset. And yes the Knyvetts are everywhere)

On Saturday, 15 March 2014, 11:56, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Bear with me, folks, but I've done some digging again, and here are some things I found very interesting - relating to the region surrounding Wayland Wood, of the 'Babes in the Wood' fame.
There was, of course, Sir William Knyvett - right at the centre of this folk legend, at Griston Hall, on the edge of Wayland Wood. Like I already said, he was Buckingham's co-conspirator, was attainted by Richard, supported Tudor, and then did well under the Tudor regime. His second wife was Joan Stafford, Buckingham's aunt. His third wife was Joan Courtenay, the widow of Sir Roger Clifford who was executed in 1485.
But the Knyvetts aren't the only interesting people living in the vicinity. There were also:
- Sir Edmund Bedingfield of Oxburgh, 14 miles from Wayland Wood. Very close associate of the Earl of Oxford. His family did really well in the Tudor era. - Southwells of Woodrising, about 5 miles from Wayland Wood. Close associates of the Knyvetts. This family also prospered in the Tudor era: the well-known statesman Richard Southwell was one of them. - John Radcliffe, Lord FitzWalter, of Attleborough, about 9 miles from Wayland Wood. It's hard to figure him out. He was a Tudor supporter, made a Knight of the Bath in October 1485, and did very well under Henry VII - at first. But he was a major figure of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1496, and that's where things get REALLY interesting.
Let's look at some of the key figures of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy:
- Lord FitzWalter, above. - Robert Radcliffe, same family. - Thomas Cressener of Morley, about 10 miles from Wayland Wood. Nephew of the above Radcliffes. - Thomas Thwaites, whose son had been in William Knyvett's service in the 1480s and been married to William Knyvett's daughter. - Sir Robert Clifford (who, as we know, betrayed these conspirators and was probably a Tudor spy). William Knyvett was married to his brother's widow, and Knyvett's daughter married Charles Clifford, who was either Robert's son or nephew.
Isn't it interesting how this particular region - and William Knyvett - is at the very centre of things? Did these supporters of Perkin Warbeck know or guess that Edward V was dead (and perhaps buried somewhere close by - even at Griston Church?) but Richard of York had gone missing?
Then there were also: - William (de) Grey of Merton, about 2 miles from Wayland Wood. His first wife was Edmund Bedingfield's sister, but I don't know how closely he was connected to the Earl of Oxford through his brother-in-law and whether he actually supported Tudor or not. He seems to have died in 1495 - coincidentally or not, who knows. (William Grey's widow Grace married Humphrey Catesby - son of John Catesby and Elizabeth Greene, and thus related to 'our' Catesby and kinsman of the other Katherine Haute.) - Calthorpes of Burnham Thorpe - about 30 miles to the north not from Wayland Wood, so not especially close, BUT close associates of Knyvetts, Southwells, et al. and connected by marriage to many key figures of the early Tudor era. Interestingly, two Calthorpe daughters were married into families that supported Perkin Warbeck and Lincoln (John Cressener and William Curson, respectively) and both were quickly married off to William Knyvett's sons after they were widowed. - Sir Henry Grey of Ketteringham, about 15 miles from Wayland Wood. He was a kinsman and close associate of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk. He was related (brother, cousin, I don't know) to both the Thomas Grey who was the first husband of Richard's aunt Isabel of York, and the other Thomas Grey who married Richard's other aunt Alice Neville! Sir Henry was an old man by this time, but it doesn't mean he and the people around him wouldn't have heard something& - Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham, about 13 miles from Wayland Wood. I don't know what his connection is (if any) to those Berkeleys who supported Tudor.
Lastly, remember the 'John Dighton' who was claimed to have been one of the murderers of the two boys? I think it was Markham who said that there was a Dighton/Dyghton living in Calais who was rumoured to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, and Henry made use of that rumour, but Dyghton never suffered any consequences for his supposed crime and may actually have been a priest. (Or something like that. I can't quite remember the details just now.) Well, I don't know if John Dyghton had anything at all to do with the disappearance, but as it happens, there was a Dyghton family of freeholders living at Methwold - 15 miles from Wayland Wood.
Pansy

Hilary, maddeningly I haven't been able to find anything specific to connect Simon Montfort or William Daubeney to this particular bunch of people around Wayland Wood. William Barley at least had a Clifford connection to the Perkin Warbeck shenanigans.
Oh well - I suppose they couldn't all live in Norfolk... and poor Knyvett just didn't have enough daughters to marry them all ;)
Pansy

Heh... I was Googling pictures of the parish church of Griston, and saw these beautiful 15th-century stained glass windows:http://www.flickr.com/photos/suewhite/5713258886/in/pool-946578@N25/lightbox/

See that single York rose at St Katherine's feet? If this were an Indiana Jones film, her sword would be pointing straight at young Edward's unmarked grave. I don't suppose this IS an Indiana Jones film, but then, Richard was found under an 'R' sign, so... ;)
Pansy

Oh, Pansy, they are glorious!
On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:31 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]> wrote:

Heh... I was Googling pictures of the parish church of Griston, and saw these beautiful 15th-century stained glass windows:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suewhite/5713258886/in/pool-946578@N25/lightbox/

See that single York rose at St Katherine's feet? If this were an Indiana Jones film, her sword would be pointing straight at young Edward's unmarked grave. I don't suppose this IS an Indiana Jones film, but then, Richard was found under an 'R' sign, so... ;)
Pansy

Pansy (out of order again) - they are all linked! Eleanor Daubigny (daughter of our William) is mother in law to a certain John Hussey (no wonder Bray approached Giles Daubigny) and to one of Sir John Newton's sons (yes Stillington strikes again - his granddaughter married the same bloke). I haven't looked for geographical links - Hussey came from Lincs. As for my lot (the Stukleys in Dorset/Hunts) they are in this up to their necks - one is descended from a Cheddar and another married William Denys of Twynyho fame. It's spooky, everywhere I turn I bump into MB and Bray - even when I'm not looking; like you and John Morton. Incidentally I take no ancestral pride or shame in this - I'm adopted, this is my adopted lot. H

On Saturday, 15 March 2014, 15:01, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
Oh, Pansy, they are glorious!
On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:31 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]> wrote:

Heh... I was Googling pictures of the parish church of Griston, and saw these beautiful 15th-century stained glass windows: http://www.flickr.com/photos/suewhite/5713258886/in/pool-946578@N25/lightbox/

See that single York rose at St Katherine's feet? If this were an Indiana Jones film, her sword would be pointing straight at young Edward's unmarked grave. I don't suppose this IS an Indiana Jones film, but then, Richard was found under an 'R' sign, so... ;)
Pansy

Pansy wrote :

"<snip>

- John Radcliffe, Lord FitzWalter, of Attleborough, about 9 miles from Wayland Wood. It's hard to figure him out. He was a Tudor supporter, made a Knight of the Bath in October 1485, and did very well under Henry VII - at first. But he was a major figure of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1496, and that's where things get REALLY interesting. [snip]

"Lastly, remember the 'John Dighton' who was claimed to have been one of the murderers of the two boys? I think it was Markham who said that there was a Dighton/Dyghton living in Calais who was rumoured to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, and Henry made use of that rumour, but Dyghton never suffered any consequences for his supposed crime and may actually have been a priest. (Or something like that. I can't quite remember the details just now.) Well, I don't know if John Dyghton had anything at all to do with the disappearance, but as it happens, there was a Dyghton family of freeholders living at Methwold - 15 miles from Wayland Wood."

Carol responds:

Sorry to chop up your post, but these two paragraphs interest me most (not in connection with "Babes in the Wood," necessarily.

First, you mention that Lord Fitzwalter is hard to figure out because he was originally a Tudor supporter but became involved in the Perkin Warbeck affair. I know nothing about him or any of the other conspirators (except a certain Sir William Stanley, who retained a Yorkist collar, presumably given him by Edward IV, which was found among his possessions when he died!). I'm wondering whether Fitzwalter and at least some of the others on your list were what I call Edwardian Yorkists, supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not transfer their loyalties to Richard III. The men I have in mind at first hoped to reinstate Edward V, but hearing and believing rumors of his death, supported Tudor far from wholeheartedly and only because he had promised to marry Elizabeth of York. They pressed for the repeal of Titulus Regius and the marriage to and coronation of EoY, but if they hoped that Henry VII would follow in the footsteps of his late father-in-law or give his wife any power, they were mistaken on both counts. About all they got from their treachery to Richard and support of Tudor was (relegitimized) Yorkist blood in Henry's heirs. If I'm right, men like Sir William (and maybe your Lord Fitzwalter?) kept their discontent to themselves, seeming to serve Tudor faithfully until the chance came to return to Yorkist rule under the real or feigned Duke of York (restored to that title by Titulus Regius), when they gladly joined the rebellion against the man they had conditionally supported at Bosworth. All this to say that maybe men like Sir William (and Fitzwalter, if he was originally a Yorkist) supported Perkin Warbeck after supporting Tudor against Richard because they were (Edwardian) Yorkists at heart. It's all speculation, of course. And if Fitzwalter was a diehard Lancastrian like the Earl of Oxford and a Tudor supporter from the outset, then I have no explanation for his puzzling behavior (unless he had that mysterious mental disorder, Buckingham's Syndrome).

As for Dighton, I'm pretty sure that there's a tradition in his hometown that he was the murderer who got away (More's story taken as fact), but I don't know where I read that and can't look it up. However, Markham was wrong on at least one count. Henry VII never "made use of that rumour," if Markham means "giving out" the Tyrell-Dighton story or Tyrell's (imaginary) confession. More made it all up, but Francis Bacon *assumed* that More got his story from Henry VII ("as the king gave out"). Susan Leas has an interesting and informative article on the subject in our files. If there was indeed a Dighton in Calais who was rumored to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, it was More, not Henry, who made use of that rumor. It would be interesting to see whether that Dighton, assuming he was real, had any connections with Tyrrell or with Richard's other faithful supporter, Edward Brampton, who has definitely been connected with Perkin Warbeck.

I hope all this isn't overly confusing as I may be taking the connections between certain ideas for granted, for example, conflating the rumor about Dighton's connection with the boys' disappearance with Tyrell's supposed confession implicating Dighton. Henry never gave out either one. More invented the story involving Dighton in the murder and all the other details from the "secret page" to the anonymous priest. Tyrrell's involvement in the supposed murder was already suspected (Vergil has him riding sorrowfully to London to carry out Richard's order), but no one besides More that I know of mentions Dighton, who must have been in some way connected with Richard for More to blacken his name in that way even though he never intended to publish his fictitious history.

I'd better stop before I digress even further. Just following my own thoughts in relation to these two points/people.

Carol

Chapter Seven of Ian Arthurson 'The Warbeck Conspiracy' is good on this - particularly the links with the Wool Trade and between Margaret of B and Isabella. According to him Duabeny and Fitwater (it's Fitzwater not Fitwalter) are linked by Thomas Cressener, Steward to Fitzwater who had been servant to Daubeney. Ironically the Chapter is headed 'A Wood of Suspicion'! I haven't read it all. H

On Saturday, 15 March 2014, 21:46, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote :

"<snip>- John Radcliffe, Lord FitzWalter, of Attleborough, about 9 miles from Wayland Wood. It's hard to figure him out. He was a Tudor supporter, made a Knight of the Bath in October 1485, and did very well under Henry VII - at first. But he was a major figure of the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1496, and that's where things get REALLY interesting. [snip]

"Lastly, remember the 'John Dighton' who was claimed to have been one of the murderers of the two boys? I think it was Markham who said that there was a Dighton/Dyghton living in Calais who was rumoured to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, and Henry made use of that rumour, but Dyghton never suffered any consequences for his supposed crime and may actually have been a priest. (Or something like that. I can't quite remember the details just now.) Well, I don't know if John Dyghton had anything at all to do with the disappearance, but as it happens, there was a Dyghton family of freeholders living at Methwold - 15 miles from Wayland Wood."
Carol responds:
Sorry to chop up your post, but these two paragraphs interest me most (not in connection with "Babes in the Wood," necessarily.
First, you mention that Lord Fitzwalter is hard to figure out because he was originally a Tudor supporter but became involved in the Perkin Warbeck affair. I know nothing about him or any of the other conspirators (except a certain Sir William Stanley, who retained a Yorkist collar, presumably given him by Edward IV, which was found among his possessions when he died!). I'm wondering whether Fitzwalter and at least some of the others on your list were what I call Edwardian Yorkists, supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not transfer their loyalties to Richard III. The men I have in mind at first hoped to reinstate Edward V, but hearing and believing rumors of his death, supported Tudor far from wholeheartedly and only because he had promised to marry Elizabeth of York. They pressed for the repeal of Titulus Regius and the marriage to and coronation of EoY, but if they hoped that Henry VII would follow in the footsteps of his late father-in-law or give his wife any power, they were mistaken on both counts. About all they got from their treachery to Richard and support of Tudor was (relegitimized) Yorkist blood in Henry's heirs. If I'm right, men like Sir William (and maybe your Lord Fitzwalter?) kept their discontent to themselves, seeming to serve Tudor faithfully until the chance came to return to Yorkist rule under the real or feigned Duke of York (restored to that title by Titulus Regius), when they gladly joined the rebellion against the man they had conditionally supported at Bosworth. All this to say that maybe men like Sir William (and Fitzwalter, if he was originally a Yorkist) supported Perkin Warbeck after supporting Tudor against Richard because they were (Edwardian) Yorkists at heart. It's all speculation, of course. And if Fitzwalter was a diehard Lancastrian like the Earl of Oxford and a Tudor supporter from the outset, then I have no explanation for his puzzling behavior (unless he had that mysterious mental disorder, Buckingham's Syndrome).
As for Dighton, I'm pretty sure that there's a tradition in his hometown that he was the murderer who got away (More's story taken as fact), but I don't know where I read that and can't look it up. However, Markham was wrong on at least one count. Henry VII never "made use of that rumour," if Markham means "giving out" the Tyrell-Dighton story or Tyrell's (imaginary) confession. More made it all up, but Francis Bacon *assumed* that More got his story from Henry VII ("as the king gave out"). Susan Leas has an interesting and informative article on the subject in our files. If there was indeed a Dighton in Calais who was rumored to have something to do with the disappearance of the boys, it was More, not Henry, who made use of that rumor. It would be interesting to see whether that Dighton, assuming he was real, had any connections with Tyrrell or with Richard's other faithful supporter, Edward Brampton, who has definitely been connected with Perkin Warbeck.
I hope all this isn't overly confusing as I may be taking the connections between certain ideas for granted, for example, conflating the rumor about Dighton's connection with the boys' disappearance with Tyrell's supposed confession implicating Dighton. Henry never gave out either one. More invented the story involving Dighton in the murder and all the other details from the "secret page" to the anonymous priest. Tyrrell's involvement in the supposed murder was already suspected (Vergil has him riding sorrowfully to London to carry out Richard's order), but no one besides More that I know of mentions Dighton, who must have been in some way connected with Richard for More to blacken his name in that way even though he never intended to publish his fictitious history.
I'd better stop before I digress even further. Just following my own thoughts in relation to these two points/people.
Carol

Correction: I had my Wymondhams mixed up. Maurice Berkeley lived in the other Wymondham in *Leicestershire*. But Norfolk's Wymondham has even more interesting connections:

- Daubeneys had had a connection to Wymondham Abbey for centuries: in fact, a William d'Aubigny founded it, and the Daubeney Earls of Arundel were buried there.

- The Cursons who took part in Lincoln's rebellion originally hailed from Wymondham.

- So did the family of Sir John Wyndham, executed in 1502 (and who was also married to Margaret Howard). His father had been born in Wymondham, and the name 'Wyndham' was actually a corruption of 'Wymondham'!

Some other bits and pieces I came across:

- John Wingfield of Dunham Magna, 11 miles from Wayland Wood. He was of 'that' Wingfield family who supported Tudor. He had married the heiress of Dunham Magna, Margaret Dorward/Durward; the Dorwards were also closely related to the Bedingfields mentioned in my earlier message.

- Robert Chamberlayn, executed in 1491 for treason: his mother was Margaret Martyn. I have yet to find out how closely Margaret is related to Thomas Martyn, who was the nephew and heir to Henry Grey of Ketteringham, mentioned in my previous message. (Curious fact: there's a letter from Elizabeth (Mowbray), Duchess of Norfolk in the Paston letters, addressed to Sir William Knyvett, Sir John Paston, Sir Robert Clere, Phlip Calthorpe, and Richard Southwell. Henry Grey was in his 'great age' going to disinherit Thomas Martyn, and Elizabeth was asking these men to interfere on Martyn's behalf.)

- Lord Audley, executed in 1497 for treason: his grandmother was Margaret Knyvett, Sir William Knyvett's aunt.

- Sir Robert Clere mentioned above was of Ormesby, Norfolk (not very close to Wayland) and his wife was Elizabeth Uvedale, of Tacolneston, 15 miles from Wayland. Their daughter Margaret Clere married Sir Ralph Shelton of Shelton Hall, about 20 miles from Wayland. Their son, Sir John Shelton, married Anne Boleyn: aunt of that other, more famous Anne Boleyn. And *their* daughter married Edmund Knyvett; their son married Lord Morley's daughter (Jane Parker's aunt); and two of their daughters, Mary and Margaret Shelton, were reputedly mistresses to Henry VIII.

Time for another aspirin&

Pansy

Thanks, Hilary - I'll have to look for that book! Re: FitzWalter's name - it's variously spelled as FitzWauter and FitzWater, but I've seen FitzWalter used most often.
Thomas Cressener/Cressenor was definitely related to these Radcliffes. Some books say he was their nephew, but I think cousin is more likely... I haven't looked very closely yet. At any rate, Attleborough and Morley were only about four miles apart.
Hilary, do you happen to know who exactly was the William Daubeney who was involved in the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1494/95? I looked at my notes on Daubeneys and I don't think this William Daubeney was a close relation to those Daubeneys - Giles et al. - who were cousins to MB's mother through the Stourtons. In fact, I haven't been able to identify this William Daubeney at all, and I wonder if I'm just missing something obvious?
Pansy

Doesn't it make you wish they were more adventurous with first names? They were all Thomas, Edward, Richard, William, John, etc. If this second William Daubeney had been a Tristan, or some such, you'd stand a better chance of nailing him. It makes me wonder if there was ever an occasion when someone thought they were receiving important information from, for example, a known cousin, when in fact it was from someone else entirely. And therefore not as reliable as at first seemed. I know they had seals, signatures and so on, but even so, one of the customary Christian names with a reasonably common surname, and chance must have kicked in occasionally. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:14 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Thanks, Hilary - I'll have to look for that book! Re: FitzWalter's name - it's variously spelled as FitzWauter and FitzWater, but I've seen FitzWalter used most often. Thomas Cressener/Cressenor was definitely related to these Radcliffes. Some books say he was their nephew, but I think cousin is more likely... I haven't looked very closely yet. At any rate, Attleborough and Morley were only about four miles apart. Hilary, do you happen to know who exactly was the William Daubeney who was involved in the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy and executed in 1494/95? I looked at my notes on Daubeneys and I don't think this William Daubeney was a close relation to those Daubeneys - Giles et al. - who were cousins to MB's mother through the Stourtons. In fact, I haven't been able to identify this William Daubeney at all, and I wonder if I'm just missing something obvious? Pansy

Many thanks, Carol - I vaguely remember that discussion on what 'the king gave out'. Do you happen to have a link to Susan Leas' article? I tried to look for it in the files, but I'm such a dunce, I couldn't find it :(

Carol wrote:

"First, you mention that Lord Fitzwalter is hard to figure out because he was originally a Tudor supporter but became involved in the Perkin Warbeck affair. I know nothing about him or any of the other conspirators (except a certain Sir William Stanley, who retained a Yorkist collar, presumably given him by Edward IV, which was found among his possessions when he died!). I'm wondering whether Fitzwalter and at least some of the others on your list were what I call Edwardian Yorkists, supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not transfer their loyalties to Richard III."

That's of course a possibility; his father had died fighting for the Yorkists in 1461.

But his other family connections might suggest otherwise. His grandmother was Elizabeth Chidiocke, whose nieces Margaret and Catherine Chidiocke were connected, through their marriages, to pretty much everyone who's everyone of the Tudor supporters. (Margaret's second husband was John Cheyne, for starters!)

Also, FitzWalter's wife was a Whetehill of Calais& I have my reasons for believing the Whetehills were very closely involved in Tudor's invasion, though I'm not 100% sure yet because I haven't been able to identify the specific Whetehill I have in mind.

The fact that FitzWalter was among the very first Knights of the Bath created by Henry VII also doesn't seem to suggest he was a reluctant Tudor supporter - and Henry gave him some important offices from the start: Steward of the King's Household in October 1485; Warden of all the King's forests for life, in February 1486. (Interestingly, it seems that in March 1486 he was also made the steward of 'the lordships of Saham Toney, Little Cressingham, Ovington, Panworth, and Necton, and the hundreds of Wayland and Grimshoe' - so basically the area surrounding Wayland Wood, especially to its north and west. I suppose it would have been an important office if they were looking for a secret buried in the neighbourhood... sorry, getting carried away again ;))

He doesn't appear to have done anything at all to distinguish himself during Edward's reign, so his sudden rise at the beginning of Henry's is suspicious to say the least.

Pansy

LOL, indeed, Sandra! Though sometimes they seem to have been more adventurous with women's names - one sometimes runs into a Griswold or a Frideswide, or Ela, Ivetta, Isolde, an odd Nicole here and there, etc. etc.
I wonder if the Margarets and Elizabeths ever envied those who were named, say, Amphyllis... or whether they laughed at them.
It's funny that men's names were so limited. Even if there's a slightly more unusual name running in the family, then half the bloody family seems to be called by that name - just look at the abundance of Maurice Berkeleys!
Pansy

Pansy, I'm probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here, but I've been investigating Calais in the time of Henry VII, to find out what I can about Sir Humphrey Talbot, who was Marshal of Calais. There are mentions of a Robert, Richard and Adrian Whetehill (surname with various different spellings) in http://www.archive.org/stream/calaischronicle00camduoft#page/n5/mode/2up. You've probably been there, done that and had the soup, but I'm posting it anyway. There's always a chance. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:04 AM To: Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Many thanks, Carol - I vaguely remember that discussion on what 'the king gave out'. Do you happen to have a link to Susan Leas' article? I tried to look for it in the files, but I'm such a dunce, I couldn't find it :(

Carol wrote:

"First, you mention that Lord Fitzwalter is hard to figure out because he was originally a Tudor supporter but became involved in the Perkin Warbeck affair. I know nothing about him or any of the other conspirators (except a certain Sir William Stanley, who retained a Yorkist collar, presumably given him by Edward IV, which was found among his possessions when he died!). I'm wondering whether Fitzwalter and at least some of the others on your list were what I call Edwardian Yorkists, supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not transfer their loyalties to Richard III."

That's of course a possibility; his father had died fighting for the Yorkists in 1461.

But his other family connections might suggest otherwise. His grandmother was Elizabeth Chidiocke, whose nieces Margaret and Catherine Chidiocke were connected, through their marriages, to pretty much everyone who's everyone of the Tudor supporters. (Margaret's second husband was John Cheyne, for starters!)

Also, FitzWalter's wife was a Whetehill of Calais& I have my reasons for believing the Whetehills were very closely involved in Tudor's invasion, though I'm not 100% sure yet because I haven't been able to identify the specific Whetehill I have in mind.

The fact that FitzWalter was among the very first Knights of the Bath created by Henry VII also doesn't seem to suggest he was a reluctant Tudor supporter - and Henry gave him some important offices from the start: Steward of the King's Household in October 1485; Warden of all the King's forests for life, in February 1486. (Interestingly, it seems that in March 1486 he was also made the steward of 'the lordships of Saham Toney, Little Cressingham, Ovington, Panworth, and Necton, and the hundreds of Wayland and Grimshoe' - so basically the area surrounding Wayland Wood, especially to its north and west. I suppose it would have been an important office if they were looking for a secret buried in the neighbourhood... sorry, getting carried away again ;))

He doesn't appear to have done anything at all to distinguish himself during Edward's reign, so his sudden rise at the beginning of Henry's is suspicious to say the least.

Pansy

Thanks, Sandra - yes, that's the same family! I'm looking for a John Whetehill, but have yet to identify him. It's possible he never married or had children - perhaps he was a priest - which would probably explain why he doesn't show up in genealogical databases...
Pansy

If I happen upon him in my various meanderings, I'll be sure to let you know. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Thanks, Sandra - yes, that's the same family! I'm looking for a John Whetehill, but have yet to identify him. It's possible he never married or had children - perhaps he was a priest - which would probably explain why he doesn't show up in genealogical databases... Pansy

Must add one more to the list:
- Sir John Audley, of Swaffham, 11 miles from Wayland Wood. His father was a Lancastrian, beheaded after Tewkesbury, and his mother was a Courtenay. He was a cousin of the 7th Lord Audley mentioned in my previous message, who was executed in 1497 for treason and whose grandmother was William Knyvett's aunt (and whose wife was Buckingham's half-sister!! how could I forget that).
NOW I'M DONE FOR THE DAY. Seriously. I could lose myself in this stuff for hours.
But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?
Pansy

It's clearly crawling with them, Pansy, so yes, I think the same. Something in the East Anglian air, I guess. I've just remembered that on his Easter 1487 progress, on the way to the Shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Walsingham, the Weasel broke his journey at Oxburgh Hall, which isn't far away either. http://www.britainexpress.com/counties/norfolk/houses/oxburgh.htm Sir Edmund Bedingfield, who owned Oxburgh Hall, was a Yorkist who failed to support Richard at Bosworth, and then turned up on the other side at Stoke. The Bedingfields apparently did well out of being turncoats. I only hope that playing host to Henry left Sir Edmund well out of pocket. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:15 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Must add one more to the list: - Sir John Audley, of Swaffham, 11 miles from Wayland Wood. His father was a Lancastrian, beheaded after Tewkesbury, and his mother was a Courtenay. He was a cousin of the 7th Lord Audley mentioned in my previous message, who was executed in 1497 for treason and whose grandmother was William Knyvett's aunt (and whose wife was Buckingham's half-sister!! how could I forget that).
NOW I'M DONE FOR THE DAY. Seriously. I could lose myself in this stuff for hours.
But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy? Pansy

Thanks for the link, Sandra! I mentioned the Bedingfields of Oxburgh in one of my earlier messages - Oxburgh Hall is approximately 13 miles from Wayland Wood, and they were connected by marriage to other families in the vicinity. But I had no idea Bedingfield had the 'honour' of entertaining Henry in 1487! Let's hope that it left him out of pocket, indeed...
Edmund Bedingfield was a close associate of the 13th Earl of Oxford (I got that from a biography of Oxford) and fought under him at Stoke. Makes you wonder what kind of a 'Yorkist' he really was? His connection with Oxford apparently wasn't a new thing at all.
How interesting that Bedingfield was married to a Shelton, too. This is beginning to read like a who's who of the later Tudor court circle!

Pansy

And since I am seemingly brainless, I get so confused!
On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for the link, Sandra! I mentioned the Bedingfields of Oxburgh in one of my earlier messages - Oxburgh Hall is approximately 13 miles from Wayland Wood, and they were connected by marriage to other families in the vicinity. But I had no idea Bedingfield had the 'honour' of entertaining Henry in 1487! Let's hope that it left him out of pocket, indeed...
Edmund Bedingfield was a close associate of the 13th Earl of Oxford (I got that from a biography of Oxford) and fought under him at Stoke. Makes you wonder what kind of a 'Yorkist' he really was? His connection with Oxford apparently wasn't a new thing at all.
How interesting that Bedingfield was married to a Shelton, too. This is beginning to read like a who's who of the later Tudor court circle!

Pansy

I now note that EoY was with Henry (according to the National Trust) at Oxburgh, for three nights, and they had separate rooms. http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/oxburgh-hall/history/ OK, I know separate was and still is standard for royals, but I'd love to think it was because these two couldn't stand the sight of each other. Three days of the whole court? With luck it would have taken Sir E the rest of his miserable traitor's life to recover financially. Fingers crossed, anyway. Incidentally, the garderobe, as perched upon by Weasel, is still in existence. http://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/historic-buildings/art75356 Oxburgh Hall is now owned by a Sir Henry Paston-Bedingfield, who has recently produced a missing' Paston letter. http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/news/NCC126552 and http://www.justregional.co.uk/long-lost-letter-star-of-pastons-exhibition/ The latter has a long-lost family tree illustration that can be greatly enlarged. There are also Paston letters from Sir E at this time in 1487. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AjZWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=%22henry+vii%22+%22oxburgh%22+1487&source=bl&ots=Sde9hHputu&sig=PSBtLuv5J20s18WuRcUvXl0jG4I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sLIlU9XvEomqhAean4EI&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22henry%20vii%22%20%22oxburgh%22%201487&f=false Sorry, I tried to make a TinyUrl, but it wouldn't work. Yes, I got the TinyUrl, no, it wouldn't link up to where it should. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Bain Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:09 PM To: mailto: Subject: Re: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

And since I am seemingly brainless, I get so confused!
On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for the link, Sandra! I mentioned the Bedingfields of Oxburgh in one of my earlier messages - Oxburgh Hall is approximately 13 miles from Wayland Wood, and they were connected by marriage to other families in the vicinity. But I had no idea Bedingfield had the 'honour' of entertaining Henry in 1487! Let's hope that it left him out of pocket, indeed... Edmund Bedingfield was a close associate of the 13th Earl of Oxford (I got that from a biography of Oxford) and fought under him at Stoke. Makes you wonder what kind of a 'Yorkist' he really was? His connection with Oxford apparently wasn't a new thing at all. How interesting that Bedingfield was married to a Shelton, too. This is beginning to read like a who's who of the later Tudor court circle!
Pansy

Pansy wrote:

"Many thanks, Carol - I vaguely remember that discussion on what 'the king gave out'. Do you happen to have a link to Susan Leas' article? I tried to look for it in the files, but I'm such a dunce, I couldn't find it :( "

Carol responds:

For "dunce," let's substitute "victim of Yahoo"! If you can't find the Files link on the website, go here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//files
The Leas article is the fourth one down. I can't give you a direct link because it's a .pdf file and when you click on it, instead of opening, you get a box asking you to save the file. Just save it to your Richard files and read it from there. If that doesn't work, contact me offlist (tell me *onlist* that you're doing so as I tend to ignore my Yahoo e-mail otherwise) and I'll e-mail the file.

Carol

Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Hilary could the" Edwardian Yorkists" have realized that Henry would not put up with any nonsense because of dating his reign to the day before Bosworth and executing Catesby for Treason e.t.c.Maybe they knew that to save their lives and their property they would have to kowtow to Henry.
Another connection and possible plotters I discovered when Eileen mentioned that the Speaker of Parliament was connected to the Woodvilles, was between the said Speaker and Dr John Argentine. Eileen didn't mention his name so I googled Speaker of Parliament in 1477 and came up with William Allington. There were quite a few articles about him and in one it mentioned an Allington marrying in to the Argentine family. There were a few William Allingtons they were from Cambridgeshire if I remember correctly ( well it was late at night when I did it). I also googled Dr John Argentine and lo and behold it was the same Argentine family Might be another Woodville plot. Thank you Eileen for the information, more bits of a very big jigsaw.

Thanks Hilary - more food for thought.
A J

Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Hilary wrote: Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. Sandra replies: What a coincidence, Hilary  the Carminowes, Champernounes and Bodrugans are the 14th-century families in Cornwall that the hero goes back in time to observe in du Maurier's The House on the Strand, which I've only just mentioned in another note. The heroine is Isolda Ferrers, who was the second wife of Sir Oliver Carminowe of Carminowe. Oh, I do love that book! =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H. (apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Caught you again!! Yes I once read that book and thought it magical. Must read it again; thanks for the memory. H

On Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 10:47, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote: Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. Sandra replies: What a coincidence, Hilary  the Carminowes, Champernounes and Bodrugans are the 14th-century families in Cornwall that the hero goes back in time to observe in du Maurier's The House on the Strand, which I've only just mentioned in another note. The heroine is Isolda Ferrers, who was the second wife of Sir Oliver Carminowe of Carminowe. Oh, I do love that book! =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H. (apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Oh me too! If only we could time travel .... Liz
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 15:02
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood


Sandra replies: What a coincidence, Hilary  the Carminowes, Champernounes and Bodrugans are the 14th-century families in Cornwall that the hero goes back in time to observe in du Maurier's The House on the Strand, which I've only just mentioned in another note. The heroine is Isolda Ferrers, who was the second wife of Sir Oliver Carminowe of Carminowe. Oh, I do love that book! =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H. (apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

I would like to be transported back to New Year's Day 1483 and ask each of our main players what their wish is. I bet it was quite different from what things turned out to be like EW 'I'll have to get that facelift done this year' and our hero 'I do wish the mother-in-law would decide to take the veil'. Bet Edward's didn't concern a diet though. H

On Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 17:18, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
Oh me too! If only we could time travel .... Liz
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 15:02
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood


Sandra replies: What a coincidence, Hilary  the Carminowes, Champernounes and Bodrugans are the 14th-century families in Cornwall that the hero goes back in time to observe in du Maurier's The House on the Strand, which I've only just mentioned in another note. The heroine is Isolda Ferrers, who was the second wife of Sir Oliver Carminowe of Carminowe. Oh, I do love that book! =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H. (apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

How would a 15th century face lift been accomplished?...pull all excess flesh up to top of head and put on hold with clothes pegs or similar...helpfully all this could be easily hidden beneath one's hennin...Eileen

Hilary,
Thanks for all this.

There is a definite connection / influence from the Welsh / Breton cultural links.

I have never seen it mentioned in any history book - not even in Kendall, who casts a suspicious eye on the fact that the captain of the ship that carried Henry from Tenby to le Conquet was a Breton.

The network of cousins extends over the channel. You can use the database Roglo to check this out.

The key figure is Olivier de Coëtivy. He was the tutor of the children of Charles VII of France, and married Marie - the king's daughter by Agnes Sorel.

Olivier's mother was a du Chastel - of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, whose castle Tremazan was on the coast a few miles from le Conquet.

So, in addition to the well known relationship to the King of France and Francis II of Brittany, Henry had literally scores of distant cousins through Olivier. They were centred in the County of Léon.

There is even a link to the manor that guarded the port of le Conquet - the wife of the owner and Jean du Quelennec were cousins.

There are also links to Owain Glyndur. Many of the military supporters of Glyndur during the 'Year of the French' were actually Bretons, mostly from families among this affinity - Penhoet, du Chastel. And Jean IV de Rieux who volunteered to accommodate Henry was the great grandson of Jean II, who was supreme commander of the army supporting Glyndur.

A further aspect beyond self interest and family connections is that of religion. Many of the Bretons worshipped Welsh saints who had been founders of their communities. Henry venerated Saint Armel / Arthmael the centre of whose cult is close to le Conquet at Plouarzel. Saint Tugdual / Tudwal may have influenced some of Henry's Breton followers.

Hope this helps

David


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 10:24:53 AM

 

According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks:  (still ongoing)  My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there.    The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them.    Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course  his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville.  4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced.    To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London.  I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place) 

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
  Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

  In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest.  Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that?   H  (back to Stillington - again)    

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
  Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?"   Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

I would imagine those gentry or Royal ladies, if they had good skin, would age fairly well. They were exposed to the sun, and all those clothes hid the ravages of gravity. There are times, these days, that hennins, long skirts, etc. seem like a good idea! Or a burkha.....NO!!!!
On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:35 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

How would a 15th century face lift been accomplished?...pull all excess flesh up to top of head and put on hold with clothes pegs or similar...helpfully all this could be easily hidden beneath one's hennin...Eileen

Hi David, Now that's interesting. Is your Coetivy like Coity in Glamorgan, from whence came the so-called Norman Turbevilles? And Armel and Arthmael are very like Arundel aren't they? Like you I went to textbooks and couldn't find much - even Ross (who is good on E4) only gives the Welsh about a paragraph. Doing Welsh genealogy is ever so hard; I presume ap and verch/ferch are like 'son or daughter of' like the Norman 'Fitz'. I will have another look. And on the surface this now seems to be going much more towards the revenge of the Breton/French/Welsh rather than a York/Lancaster thing. You sit it out, wait for a moment of weakness (contrived or otherwise) and take advantage of it. If you can find a Welsh figurehead (my Staffordshire Griffeths reckon they were descended from the Tydders) then so much the better. A really interesting question is whether it was contrived and who helped to contrive it. Regards H

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 13:01, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
Thanks for all this.

There is a definite connection / influence from the Welsh / Breton cultural links.

I have never seen it mentioned in any history book - not even in Kendall, who casts a suspicious eye on the fact that the captain of the ship that carried Henry from Tenby to le Conquet was a Breton.

The network of cousins extends over the channel. You can use the database Roglo to check this out.

The key figure is Olivier de Coëtivy. He was the tutor of the children of Charles VII of France, and married Marie - the king's daughter by Agnes Sorel.

Olivier's mother was a du Chastel - of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, whose castle Tremazan was on the coast a few miles from le Conquet.

So, in addition to the well known relationship to the King of France and Francis II of Brittany, Henry had literally scores of distant cousins through Olivier. They were centred in the County of Léon.

There is even a link to the manor that guarded the port of le Conquet - the wife of the owner and Jean du Quelennec were cousins.

There are also links to Owain Glyndur. Many of the military supporters of Glyndur during the 'Year of the French' were actually Bretons, mostly from families among this affinity - Penhoet, du Chastel. And Jean IV de Rieux who volunteered to accommodate Henry was the great grandson of Jean II, who was supreme commander of the army supporting Glyndur.

A further aspect beyond self interest and family connections is that of religion. Many of the Bretons worshipped Welsh saints who had been founders of their communities. Henry venerated Saint Armel / Arthmael the centre of whose cult is close to le Conquet at Plouarzel. Saint Tugdual / Tudwal may have influenced some of Henry's Breton followers.

Hope this helps

David


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 10:24:53 AM

According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

So much is missed by us assuming that everything is, and always was, moved by road. In early periods this is quite wrong, the roads were mostly either terrible or non existent. Everything, and that includes people was moved by sea.
Hence the connection between Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Culturally they have so much in common because of it.
In my part of the East of England the traffic was across the channel and the North Sea, and up and down the East coast of England. Much was also moved by river.
What we think of as our neighbours now, would not necessarily be what was thought of as neighbours then. There was an amazing amount of travel and trading, not to mention interbreeding going on.
Just one reason that the current controversy about immigration winds me up.
Who do these people think the "English" are?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 4:29:16 PM

 

Hi David, Now that's interesting. Is your Coetivy like Coity in Glamorgan, from whence came the so-called Norman Turbevilles? And Armel and Arthmael are very like Arundel aren't they? Like you I went to textbooks and couldn't find much - even Ross (who is good on E4) only gives the Welsh about a paragraph. Doing Welsh genealogy is ever so hard; I presume ap and verch/ferch are like 'son or daughter of' like the Norman 'Fitz'. I will have another look. And on the surface this now seems to be going much more towards the revenge of the Breton/French/Welsh rather than a York/Lancaster thing. You sit it out, wait for a moment of weakness (contrived or otherwise) and take advantage of it. If you can find a Welsh figurehead (my Staffordshire Griffeths reckon they were descended from the Tydders) then so much the better. A really interesting question is whether it was contrived and who helped to contrive it. Regards H

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 13:01, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
  Hilary,
Thanks for all this.

There is a definite connection / influence from the Welsh / Breton cultural links.

I have never seen it mentioned in any history book - not even in Kendall, who casts a suspicious eye on the fact that the captain of the ship that carried Henry from Tenby to le Conquet was a Breton.

The network of cousins extends over the channel. You can use the database Roglo to check this out.

The key figure is Olivier de Coëtivy. He was the tutor of the children of Charles VII of France, and married Marie - the king's daughter by Agnes Sorel.

Olivier's mother was a du Chastel - of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, whose castle Tremazan was on the coast a few miles from le Conquet.

So, in addition to the well known relationship to the King of France and Francis II of Brittany, Henry had literally scores of distant cousins through Olivier. They were centred in the County of Léon.

There is even a link to the manor that guarded the port of le Conquet - the wife of the owner and Jean du Quelennec were cousins.

There are also links to Owain Glyndur. Many of the military supporters of Glyndur during the 'Year of the French' were actually Bretons, mostly from families among this affinity - Penhoet, du Chastel. And Jean IV de Rieux who volunteered to accommodate Henry was the great grandson of Jean II, who was supreme commander of the army supporting Glyndur.

A further aspect beyond self interest and family connections is that of religion. Many of the Bretons worshipped Welsh saints who had been founders of their communities. Henry venerated Saint Armel / Arthmael the centre of whose cult is close to le Conquet at Plouarzel. Saint Tugdual / Tudwal may have influenced some of Henry's Breton followers.

Hope this helps

David


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 10:24:53 AM

  According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks:  (still ongoing)  My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there.    The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them.    Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course  his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville.  4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced.    To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London.  I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place) 

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
  Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

  In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest.  Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that?   H  (back to Stillington - again)    

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
  Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?"   Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Hi Hilary
I was brought up in Glamorgan near to Coity. My Sister still lives there. We were able to walk to Coity Castle from my Sister's previous house. It is quite small as castle's go and was one of three that protect the area. One at Ogmore on the estuary, one at Newcastle on the West of Bridgend and Coity which, if my geography is correct, to the North East.
The first Turbeville was a Norman named Payn who was charged with taking Coity from the Welsh Lord Morgan Gam and instead of fighting he agreed to marry Morgan's daughter Sybil in around 1092. I have googled all this and the word Coity means wood house. In Welsh ty means house and coed is wood as in a wood. So not sure how that fits in with the Breton family but the Welsh language has similarities with Breton.
Apparently the male line of this particular Turbeville family died out in 1360 and was inherited by the female line and ended up with the Gamage family. There were several cadet Turbeville families who lived in this part of Glamorgan and it was suggested that these could have been illegitimate lines.That might account for them sucking up to Tudor if Edward hadn't been forthcoming. Richard was Lord of Glamorgan so maybe they had a grudge against him too.
There were still Turbevilles living in the area in the late 60s because I remember a Mr Turbeville. I think he lived at Merthyr Mawr house which is near to Ogmore Castle and Ewenny Priory. There were Stradlings and Mansells living in the area definitely in the 19th century, because I came across them when researching my family, and possibly even now.
It occurred to me from what you and David said the plot to put Tudor on the throne could have been a long term plan and not just bandwagon jumping. This fits in with what I read ( but I can't remember where) that ever after Tewkesbury MB thought of Henry as "the Lancastrian heir".
Sorry to ramble onMary

I love the rambles.....there is a Turbeville in my early family. They were in Virginia and colonized the Carolina's before the American Revolution. So this is fascinating for me to read. Thank you
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:11 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary

I was brought up in Glamorgan near to Coity. My Sister still lives there. We were able to walk to Coity Castle from my Sister's previous house. It is quite small as castle's go and was one of three that protect the area. One at Ogmore on the estuary, one at Newcastle on the West of Bridgend and Coity which, if my geography is correct, to the North East.
The first Turbeville was a Norman named Payn who was charged with taking Coity from the Welsh Lord Morgan Gam and instead of fighting he agreed to marry Morgan's daughter Sybil in around 1092. I have googled all this and the word Coity means wood house. In Welsh ty means house and coed is wood as in a wood. So not sure how that fits in with the Breton family but the Welsh language has similarities with Breton.
Apparently the male line of this particular Turbeville family died out in 1360 and was inherited by the female line and ended up with the Gamage family. There were several cadet Turbeville families who lived in this part of Glamorgan and it was suggested that these could have been illegitimate lines.That might account for them sucking up to Tudor if Edward hadn't been forthcoming. Richard was Lord of Glamorgan so maybe they had a grudge against him too.
There were still Turbevilles living in the area in the late 60s because I remember a Mr Turbeville. I think he lived at Merthyr Mawr house which is near to Ogmore Castle and Ewenny Priory. There were Stradlings and Mansells living in the area definitely in the 19th century, because I came across them when researching my family, and possibly even now.
It occurred to me from what you and David said the plot to put Tudor on the throne could have been a long term plan and not just bandwagon jumping. This fits in with what I read ( but I can't remember where) that ever after Tewkesbury MB thought of Henry as "the Lancastrian heir".
Sorry to ramble on Mary

Hilary wrote :

"According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them."

Carol responds:

Wasn't the palatinate to consist of lands that Richard himself won from the Scots? A recipe for war if I ever saw one. Yet one of the first things Richard did was make a three-year truce with the Scots, complete with a marriage deal involving his niece Anne de la Pole, which, of course, never materialized.
Hilary wrote:
"Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone?" Carol responds:

I can't answer your question (though I'd love to know more about Richard's relationship with the Staffords [other than Buckingham], the Vaughns [other than the one he executed], and the Herberts [notably, his son-in-law]. The Vaughns and Staffords (or some of them) helped thwart Buckingham's Rebellion, and at least one, Humphrey Stafford, was with Richard at Bosworth and tried to start a Yorkist rebellion against the Tudor after Richard's death.

But I wanted to mention an interesting remark by Baldwin that I came across recently. After pointing out that Edward had made Richard "chief justice of North Wales, chief steward of all the Duchy of Lancaster lordships in South Wales and chief steward and surveyor of the principality of Wales and of the earldom of March in November 1469, and chief justice and chamberlain of South Wales in February 1470," he remarks: "It is curious to reflect that if the Earl of Warwick had remained loyal after the troubles of 1469 much of Richard's future career would, in all probability, have been spent in the principality rather than in the north."

Baldwin, David (2012-05-02). Richard III (Kindle Locations 636-638 and 641-642). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I wonder--If Richard had retained those positions instead of being made Lord of the North, could he have kept Tudor from entering Wales (and Rhys ap Thomas from turning traitor)? Could he have kept better control of the Stanleys? What else would have been different (aside from this relationship with York)? Then, again, his marriage to Anne Neville made a relationship with the North rather than Wales desirable.

You must have a lot of patience and persistence, Hilary! Do you mind my asking what you intend to do with all these findings? A book or article in the works, maybe?

Carol

Liz wrote :

Oh me too! If only we could time travel ....

Carol responds:

Time travel and witness events as they really happened or time travel and change history? Who knows what the consequences would be if we could save Richard, not for him and the England of his time (I'm sure most of us agree that his rule would have been a vast improvement over Henry's) but for the modern world. I like to think that the Renaissance in England would still have happened (it really had little to do with Elizabeth I), but England might still be Catholic and, in alliance with Portugal, it might have settled a larger portion of the New World . . . .

Carol

It's too early to say Carol - it started with looking at those who defected when Richard became king and then kind of also merged into Stillington as well (can never get away from him). I don't know where it's taking me. I'm sure Amy Licence would have come up with something sensational by now. I spent a working life doing stats for the govenment and my degree was in the interpretation of historical data - so it's a love not a chore (though you can overdose). As you quite rightly say, it's difficult to say whether a whole family supported the Yorkists or not. HQ might but 'branch offices' might not, depending on what you stood to gain and, of course, whether you personally knew the King. What did strike me when I was at Milford Haven a couple of weeks' ago (no, not on pilgrmage) was, in the words of Jane Austen, it was a very long way. You'd have to be very confident of support to take an army all through Wales. I live near Leicester and it took me over four hours by motorway to get there - that's the equivalent of going to the Scottish border. HT must have been very confident indeed; because one could imagine that it would not be too hard for Yorkist supporters to highjack him in the remoter parts. Ironic that Rivers had been given a virtual Wales posting at Ludlow. H

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 21:22, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote :

"According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them."

Carol responds:

Wasn't the palatinate to consist of lands that Richard himself won from the Scots? A recipe for war if I ever saw one. Yet one of the first things Richard did was make a three-year truce with the Scots, complete with a marriage deal involving his niece Anne de la Pole, which, of course, never materialized.
Hilary wrote:
"Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone?" Carol responds:

I can't answer your question (though I'd love to know more about Richard's relationship with the Staffords [other than Buckingham], the Vaughns [other than the one he executed], and the Herberts [notably, his son-in-law]. The Vaughns and Staffords (or some of them) helped thwart Buckingham's Rebellion, and at least one, Humphrey Stafford, was with Richard at Bosworth and tried to start a Yorkist rebellion against the Tudor after Richard's death.

But I wanted to mention an interesting remark by Baldwin that I came across recently. After pointing out that Edward had made Richard "chief justice of North Wales, chief steward of all the Duchy of Lancaster lordships in South Wales and chief steward and surveyor of the principality of Wales and of the earldom of March in November 1469, and chief justice and chamberlain of South Wales in February 1470," he remarks: "It is curious to reflect that if the Earl of Warwick had remained loyal after the troubles of 1469 much of Richard's future career would, in all probability, have been spent in the principality rather than in the north."

Baldwin, David (2012-05-02). Richard III (Kindle Locations 636-638 and 641-642). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I wonder--If Richard had retained those positions instead of being made Lord of the North, could he have kept Tudor from entering Wales (and Rhys ap Thomas from turning traitor)? Could he have kept better control of the Stanleys? What else would have been different (aside from this relationship with York)? Then, again, his marriage to Anne Neville made a relationship with the North rather than Wales desirable.

You must have a lot of patience and persistence, Hilary! Do you mind my asking what you intend to do with all these findings? A book or article in the works, maybe?

Carol

That's very interesting: I'd never heard of them until I looked at Morton. Even more interesting is that the Gamages, whom you mention, married into the Denys family - you know, he that married Edith Twynyho and came from a family of sheriffs of Glos (but originally from Ogmore in Glamorgan). This meant Thomas Gamagae was also brother-in-law to the Stradlings and William Herbert's sister. I'm sure PG or Amy Licence could make something sensational out of all this - you know, that Antony Woodville was a secret Lancastrian all along, having been persuaded by his lover Gwenllian Stradling that theirs was the true cause. And that's of course what Richard found out at Northampton :) :)

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 20:11, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary
I was brought up in Glamorgan near to Coity. My Sister still lives there. We were able to walk to Coity Castle from my Sister's previous house. It is quite small as castle's go and was one of three that protect the area. One at Ogmore on the estuary, one at Newcastle on the West of Bridgend and Coity which, if my geography is correct, to the North East.
The first Turbeville was a Norman named Payn who was charged with taking Coity from the Welsh Lord Morgan Gam and instead of fighting he agreed to marry Morgan's daughter Sybil in around 1092. I have googled all this and the word Coity means wood house. In Welsh ty means house and coed is wood as in a wood. So not sure how that fits in with the Breton family but the Welsh language has similarities with Breton.
Apparently the male line of this particular Turbeville family died out in 1360 and was inherited by the female line and ended up with the Gamage family. There were several cadet Turbeville families who lived in this part of Glamorgan and it was suggested that these could have been illegitimate lines.That might account for them sucking up to Tudor if Edward hadn't been forthcoming. Richard was Lord of Glamorgan so maybe they had a grudge against him too.
There were still Turbevilles living in the area in the late 60s because I remember a Mr Turbeville. I think he lived at Merthyr Mawr house which is near to Ogmore Castle and Ewenny Priory. There were Stradlings and Mansells living in the area definitely in the 19th century, because I came across them when researching my family, and possibly even now.
It occurred to me from what you and David said the plot to put Tudor on the throne could have been a long term plan and not just bandwagon jumping. This fits in with what I read ( but I can't remember where) that ever after Tewkesbury MB thought of Henry as "the Lancastrian heir".
Sorry to ramble onMary

Hilary, I hope you do write a book about your discoveries about interconnected families. So much about this era has been lost, and who is linked to who puts another perspective on what we have been told. It could provide the missing link that clears up some of the mysteries.

Nico



On Friday, 28 March 2014, 10:28, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
That's very interesting: I'd never heard of them until I looked at Morton. Even more interesting is that the Gamages, whom you mention, married into the Denys family - you know, he that married Edith Twynyho and came from a family of sheriffs of Glos (but originally from Ogmore in Glamorgan). This meant Thomas Gamagae was also brother-in-law to the Stradlings and William Herbert's sister. I'm sure PG or Amy Licence could make something sensational out of all this - you know, that Antony Woodville was a secret Lancastrian all along, having been persuaded by his lover Gwenllian Stradling that theirs was the true cause. And that's of course what Richard found out at Northampton :) :)

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 20:11, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary
I was brought up in Glamorgan near to Coity. My Sister still lives there. We were able to walk to Coity Castle from my Sister's previous house. It is quite small as castle's go and was one of three that protect the area. One at Ogmore on the estuary, one at Newcastle on the West of Bridgend and Coity which, if my geography is correct, to the North East.
The first Turbeville was a Norman named Payn who was charged with taking Coity from the Welsh Lord Morgan Gam and instead of fighting he agreed to marry Morgan's daughter Sybil in around 1092. I have googled all this and the word Coity means wood house. In Welsh ty means house and coed is wood as in a wood. So not sure how that fits in with the Breton family but the Welsh language has similarities with Breton.
Apparently the male line of this particular Turbeville family died out in 1360 and was inherited by the female line and ended up with the Gamage family. There were several cadet Turbeville families who lived in this part of Glamorgan and it was suggested that these could have been illegitimate lines.That might account for them sucking up to Tudor if Edward hadn't been forthcoming. Richard was Lord of Glamorgan so maybe they had a grudge against him too.
There were still Turbevilles living in the area in the late 60s because I remember a Mr Turbeville. I think he lived at Merthyr Mawr house which is near to Ogmore Castle and Ewenny Priory. There were Stradlings and Mansells living in the area definitely in the 19th century, because I came across them when researching my family, and possibly even now.
It occurred to me from what you and David said the plot to put Tudor on the throne could have been a long term plan and not just bandwagon jumping. This fits in with what I read ( but I can't remember where) that ever after Tewkesbury MB thought of Henry as "the Lancastrian heir".
Sorry to ramble onMary

Mary and Hilary,

Mary is right about the similarities between the surnames and the Breton and Welsh languages.

In Breton, Coët is wood which is Coed in Welsh. Ty also means house in both languages. Many places in Brittany have names that are understandable in Welsh and many also refer to Welsh or British saints who are said to have founded many communities.

Coëtivy - Ivi's wood
Penancoët - top / end of the wood (surname of Charles II's mistress)
Tymeur - Big house - Ty Mawr in Welsh
Lanildut - the hermitage / church of Saint Illtyd
Plouarzel - the parish of Armel
Bihan - Little (compare with Vaughan)

Hilary, you might be interested in the work of Catherine Keats-Rohan who has specialised in the type of analysis you seem to be undertaking. It uses everything we might know about a person or event - family connections, offices held, property owned etc - and puts it into a computer system.

I think it has been called prosopography.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 10:28:54 AM

 

That's very interesting: I'd never heard of them until I looked at Morton. Even more interesting is that the Gamages, whom you mention, married into the Denys family - you know, he that married Edith Twynyho and came from a family of sheriffs of Glos (but originally from Ogmore in Glamorgan). This meant Thomas Gamagae was also brother-in-law to the Stradlings and William Herbert's sister. I'm sure PG or Amy Licence could make something sensational out of all this - you know, that Antony Woodville was a secret Lancastrian all along, having been persuaded by his lover Gwenllian Stradling that theirs was the true cause. And that's of course what Richard found out at Northampton :) :)

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 20:11, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
  Hi Hilary
I was brought up in Glamorgan near to Coity. My Sister still lives there. We were able to walk to Coity Castle from my Sister's previous house. It is quite small as castle's go and was one of three that protect the area. One at Ogmore  on the estuary, one at Newcastle on the West of Bridgend and Coity which, if my geography is correct, to the North East.
The first Turbeville was a Norman named Payn who was charged with taking Coity from the Welsh Lord Morgan Gam and instead of fighting he agreed to marry Morgan's daughter Sybil in around 1092. I have googled all this and the word Coity means wood house. In Welsh ty means house and coed is wood as in a wood. So not sure how that fits in with the Breton family but the Welsh language has similarities with Breton.
Apparently the male line of this particular  Turbeville family died out in 1360 and was inherited by the female line and ended up with the Gamage family. There were several cadet Turbeville families who lived in this part of Glamorgan and it was suggested that these could have been illegitimate lines.That might account for them sucking up to Tudor if Edward hadn't been forthcoming. Richard was Lord of Glamorgan so maybe they had a grudge against him too.
There were still Turbevilles living in the area in the late 60s because I remember a Mr Turbeville. I think he lived at Merthyr Mawr house which is near to Ogmore Castle and Ewenny Priory. There were Stradlings and Mansells living in the area definitely in the 19th century, because I came across them when researching my family, and possibly even now. 
It occurred to me from what you and David said the plot to put Tudor on the throne could have been a long term plan and not just bandwagon jumping. This fits in with what I read ( but I can't remember where) that ever after Tewkesbury MB thought of Henry as "the Lancastrian heir".
Sorry to ramble onMary

Hilary,
You might be interested to know that Sir John Turbeville was sent to Brittany by Henry. According to the article the Kings army into the Parts of Bretaigne, while Henry was trying to get a real army in place after the French invasion, he commissioned the Earl of Derby to raise 500 men that were sent under the command of John Turbeville with the intention of capturing Brest with the agreement of Anne. But the pro-French forces got there first and the force had to return.

Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 4:29:16 PM

 

Hi David, Now that's interesting. Is your Coetivy like Coity in Glamorgan, from whence came the so-called Norman Turbevilles? And Armel and Arthmael are very like Arundel aren't they? Like you I went to textbooks and couldn't find much - even Ross (who is good on E4) only gives the Welsh about a paragraph. Doing Welsh genealogy is ever so hard; I presume ap and verch/ferch are like 'son or daughter of' like the Norman 'Fitz'. I will have another look. And on the surface this now seems to be going much more towards the revenge of the Breton/French/Welsh rather than a York/Lancaster thing. You sit it out, wait for a moment of weakness (contrived or otherwise) and take advantage of it. If you can find a Welsh figurehead (my Staffordshire Griffeths reckon they were descended from the Tydders) then so much the better. A really interesting question is whether it was contrived and who helped to contrive it. Regards H

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 13:01, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
  Hilary,
Thanks for all this.

There is a definite connection / influence from the Welsh / Breton cultural links.

I have never seen it mentioned in any history book - not even in Kendall, who casts a suspicious eye on the fact that the captain of the ship that carried Henry from Tenby to le Conquet was a Breton.

The network of cousins extends over the channel. You can use the database Roglo to check this out.

The key figure is Olivier de Coëtivy. He was the tutor of the children of Charles VII of France, and married Marie - the king's daughter by Agnes Sorel.

Olivier's mother was a du Chastel - of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, whose castle Tremazan was on the coast a few miles from le Conquet.

So, in addition to the well known relationship to the King of France and Francis II of Brittany, Henry had literally scores of distant cousins through Olivier. They were centred in the County of Léon.

There is even a link to the manor that guarded the port of le Conquet - the wife of the owner and Jean du Quelennec were cousins.

There are also links to Owain Glyndur. Many of the military supporters of Glyndur during the 'Year of the French' were actually Bretons, mostly from families among this affinity - Penhoet, du Chastel. And Jean IV de Rieux who volunteered to accommodate Henry was the great grandson of Jean II, who was supreme commander of the army supporting Glyndur.

A further aspect beyond self interest and family connections is that of religion. Many of the Bretons worshipped Welsh saints who had been founders of their communities. Henry venerated Saint Armel / Arthmael the centre of whose cult is close to le Conquet at Plouarzel. Saint Tugdual / Tudwal may have influenced some of Henry's Breton followers.

Hope this helps

David


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 10:24:53 AM

  According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks:  (still ongoing)  My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there.    The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them.    Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course  his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville.  4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced.    To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London.  I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place) 

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
  Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

  In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest.  Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that?   H  (back to Stillington - again)    

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
  Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?"   Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Many thanks David and for your other comments - and Mary and Sandra too! I shall pursue all this. Have been struggling to instal Windows 8 (now that is seriously worse than Yahoo folks!). Twas a gesture of goodwill to help hubby whose computer has died. Up and working again now, and catching up! More serious work to do. Have also found other family links with the West Country and the Welsh borders which go back to the thirteenth century. So a lot of this could well be put at the door of that lovely person Edward I. H On Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 16:33, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
You might be interested to know that Sir John Turbeville was sent to Brittany by Henry. According to the article the Kings army into the Parts of Bretaigne, while Henry was trying to get a real army in place after the French invasion, he commissioned the Earl of Derby to raise 500 men that were sent under the command of John Turbeville with the intention of capturing Brest with the agreement of Anne. But the pro-French forces got there first and the force had to return.

Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 4:29:16 PM

Hi David, Now that's interesting. Is your Coetivy like Coity in Glamorgan, from whence came the so-called Norman Turbevilles? And Armel and Arthmael are very like Arundel aren't they? Like you I went to textbooks and couldn't find much - even Ross (who is good on E4) only gives the Welsh about a paragraph. Doing Welsh genealogy is ever so hard; I presume ap and verch/ferch are like 'son or daughter of' like the Norman 'Fitz'. I will have another look. And on the surface this now seems to be going much more towards the revenge of the Breton/French/Welsh rather than a York/Lancaster thing. You sit it out, wait for a moment of weakness (contrived or otherwise) and take advantage of it. If you can find a Welsh figurehead (my Staffordshire Griffeths reckon they were descended from the Tydders) then so much the better. A really interesting question is whether it was contrived and who helped to contrive it. Regards H

On Thursday, 27 March 2014, 13:01, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
Thanks for all this.

There is a definite connection / influence from the Welsh / Breton cultural links.

I have never seen it mentioned in any history book - not even in Kendall, who casts a suspicious eye on the fact that the captain of the ship that carried Henry from Tenby to le Conquet was a Breton.

The network of cousins extends over the channel. You can use the database Roglo to check this out.

The key figure is Olivier de Coëtivy. He was the tutor of the children of Charles VII of France, and married Marie - the king's daughter by Agnes Sorel.

Olivier's mother was a du Chastel - of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, whose castle Tremazan was on the coast a few miles from le Conquet.

So, in addition to the well known relationship to the King of France and Francis II of Brittany, Henry had literally scores of distant cousins through Olivier. They were centred in the County of Léon.

There is even a link to the manor that guarded the port of le Conquet - the wife of the owner and Jean du Quelennec were cousins.

There are also links to Owain Glyndur. Many of the military supporters of Glyndur during the 'Year of the French' were actually Bretons, mostly from families among this affinity - Penhoet, du Chastel. And Jean IV de Rieux who volunteered to accommodate Henry was the great grandson of Jean II, who was supreme commander of the army supporting Glyndur.

A further aspect beyond self interest and family connections is that of religion. Many of the Bretons worshipped Welsh saints who had been founders of their communities. Henry venerated Saint Armel / Arthmael the centre of whose cult is close to le Conquet at Plouarzel. Saint Tugdual / Tudwal may have influenced some of Henry's Breton followers.

Hope this helps

David


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 10:24:53 AM

According to the books I've read Gloucester was to be given his own Palatinate embracing the NE to the Scottish borders. This was power indeed - a kingdom within a kingdom. This would give an arrangement like the NW where the Duchy of Lancaster is/was held by the Monarch - not a recipe for happiness as one can see from the Stanleys and the Haringtons. If you had lands there you never really owned them. However, here are a few more crumbs from my work over the last few weeks: (still ongoing) My method is to take families and examine their ancestry, their spouses' ancestry and of course what happened to them after 1485. Sometimes I have to go back to the 12th or 13th centuries to get a feel. I've now done about 10,000 records but need to do more. You can only do so much before going seriously mad :) 1. Outside of the NE,the Welsh influence is something to be reckoned with. From the Wirral down to Cornwall the Welsh have managed to infilitrate a lot of influential families. The Turbevilles (no-one ever mentions them because they were fading by this period) though originally Norman, had been in Coity Glalmorgan since at least the 12th century and had married not only into Welsh notables but into the Audleys, the Beauchamps, the St Johns, the Delaberes, the Arundels for starters, as well as Sir Rhys ap Gryffyd. A junior branch was in Bere Regis in Dorset (yes Hardy was right) and one there was the mother of a certain priest called John Morton. Another was the mistress of William Herbert. Their spiritual home was Brecknock, so Morton should have felt at home there. The other Welsh family of note were the Griffiths or Gruffyds of Wichnor Staffs who originated in Carmarthen but married into the Vernons, the Ludlows, the Bagots, the Tyrwhits, the Montforts, the Herberts and the Willoughbys. Sir Rhys ap Thomas is descended from them. Finally, there are Stillington's chums the Newtons, whose real name is Cradog and who again hail from Glamorgan. Sir John Newton's brother was Sir Matthew Craddock, Sheriff of Hunts - so they were good at camoflage. Stillington's granddaughters ended up marrying Welshmen and of course his now known associates the Twynyhos married into the Corbets and Touchets. And we mustn't forget the Woodvilles/Greys. If Rivers hadn't been the uncle of the POW then his Welsh associations through the Greys of Ruthin and the Stradlings would make him a good suspect for conspiracy - that and a base on the Welsh border. The same goes for some of the other Woodvilles. 2. Never underestimate the power/influence of women. There are so many women in this period who have multiple influential marriages. Good old Alice Cheddar, aunt of the famous Cheddar line was married to John Fitzroger, Sheriff of Somerset & Dorset, Sir Edmund Clyvedon, Sir Ralph Carminow, Sir John Rodney and Sir William Bonville. Her grandchildren were to marry into the Courtenays, the Carminows, the Poynings, the Bodrugans, the Beaumonts - to name but a few. Networks and networks. 3. Never be fooled by a relatively unknown name. Catherine Affeton, who married the Sheriff of Devon, seems a benign enough name; until you realise her previous marriage was to a Bourchier! Her granddaughter married Sir William Denys, the High Sheriff of Glos (who married first Edith Tywnyho). He sounds benign enough but he's actually descended from the daughter of Cardinal Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. The Stradlings take us straight to the Hungerfords and also Anthony Woodville. 4. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. a. how did Stillington get into the Newton networks. I now know how/why his family married into the Inglebys but I can't make the leap from Yorkshire to the SW. And this was way before he became bishop? Am looking at Beckynton at the moment. Could it have been through the woman who was mother of his children? b. what do we know about the Conwys? They seem to be close to Burdet, as do the Rodneys c. how close were Stillington and Morton? Both were at Oxford at about the same time, both were bright and ambitious. Stillington has good record of serving Henry VI. d. Did Edward realise that when he gave Clarence Farleigh Hungerford he was giving him a can of worms? Clarence there seems surrounded by people who were/or would become anit-Yorkist plotters. e. Some of you know much more about the Welsh end of this than me - and it is logical that it would also tie in with the Bretons (David!). What was the real history of Wales after Glendower - was it simmering under the surface? Help anyone? f. Where is Buckingham in this? Is he a plant, encouraged to believe that he is the chosen one? g. Was the Eleanor Talbot news a plant - designed to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy? Despite JAH's admirable work I remain unconvinced. To conclude all I would say is that were I the French and afraid this new warrior king might launch an eventual offensive then I would take the opportunity of cause havoc in the capital whilst he is out of if, knowing that I've also got quite a bit of fringe support from the discontented and dispossessed in the West. The work continues - I need to look at London. I'll leave you in peace. H.(apologies for typos this is jumping all over the place)

On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 19:14, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here.I thought that Gloucester & Northumberland were made to divide the north between them following intervention from E4 so that G controlled the northwest & N the northeast, according to their marcher responsibilities. Or is this beside the point?

Sent from my iPad
On 18 Mar 2014, at 15:59, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

In response to AJ and David I've now completed quite a big tour of 15th century England (and way back to Edward I). There are two things which really hit you: 1. Both the nobility and the gentry had inadvertently created a marvellous landscape for plotting; and this had been going on for a couple of centuries at least. So to give you an example, Stafford HQ might be at Maxstoke but there are branch offices all over the country. Now the branches might not always toe the line (particularly if you're in Devon and stand a chance of grabbing the Earldom of Essex from the Courtenays) but it's still a lovely way to communicate without suspicion if you need to. The High Sheriffs and MPs have really got it sown up - they've intermarried and what was once a Crown Office has almost become an heriditary right. So you're in Hunts, but your cousin is probably in Essex or Devon. And you know the nobiltiy well - you've probably lent them money. Add to this the fact that some families, if you go back beyond Edward III, have as a good or a better claim than Buckingham. 2. Alone in all this stands the North East - a county/country on its own, as Richard and Edward (who gave him the Palatinate ) would have known . Their big families have rarely spread south at this point. Yes the Nevills tried with the Earldom of Warwick, but how could they in so short a time supplant the Beauchamps, who have spread everywhere. The divide is the North East and the rest. Not the North v South. Once a Yorkist king had lost his control of London (and I have yet to look at London), then by 1483 he was in trouble. Which is why Richard sent for urgent help from Yorks. And why, despite his admirable intentions, he should never have left London for his progress so soon. As you know I have my problems with Edwardian Yorkists - every supposed one I've stumbled on did rather well under our Henry. Neither do I think there was a sort of James Bond/MI5 master plotter - the opportunity lent itself and people took it. Some Master Puppeteers (Louis XI in my book) used others (MB, Morton, HT). I leave you with an observation. Our Antony Rivers/Woodville has very close connections to the South Western plotters through his marriages and his daughter Margaret Poyntz. Has anyone looked at that? H (back to Stillington - again)

On Sunday, 16 March 2014, 21:55, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: //snip// "But please, someone, anyone - tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it very peculiar that there's this one particular spot in Norfolk, with an approximately 15-mile radius, that is so heavily connected to major players of the early Tudor era and to the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy?" Doug here: Well, if one considers Carol's suggestion of "Edwardian" Yorkists; ie, supporters of Edward V, that might *help* explain the situation: they supported Tudor because of his marriage to Edward V's sister and on the presumption both Edward *and* Richard were dead. The appearance of Perkin Warbeck brought them back to supporting the nearest legitimate, to them, *living* Yorkist male. Then again, it could be simply a case of "buyer's remorse" in regards to HT. Or both. Doug

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications.
Mary

Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else.
My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task. Liz
From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood



Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications.
Mary

Oh Liz, I can imagine. This is another of the many things which make those of us with ancestors in UK, just go blind, because you have to add in the wild card of census takers who spell (maybe) what they hear! There must be someone, somewhere who was Welsh, because two great aunts were named Gladwys and Nelwyn.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else.

My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task.

Liz

From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications.

Mary

Do any of you know anything about Dafydd Gam? He crops up and didn't Shakespeare use him as one of the Welsh contingent in Henry V? H On Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 20:50, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
Oh Liz, I can imagine. This is another of the many things which make those of us with ancestors in UK, just go blind, because you have to add in the wild card of census takers who spell (maybe) what they hear! There must be someone, somewhere who was Welsh, because two great aunts were named Gladwys and Nelwyn. From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else. My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task. Liz From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications. Mary

Afraid not but there is a wiki article. I'm not sure how accurate it is because I only have the vaguest knowledge about him. Liz
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014, 10:16
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood



Do any of you know anything about Dafydd Gam? He crops up and didn't Shakespeare use him as one of the Welsh contingent in Henry V? H On Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 20:50, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
Oh Liz, I can imagine. This is another of the many things which make those of us with ancestors in UK, just go blind, because you have to add in the wild card of census takers who spell (maybe) what they hear! There must be someone, somewhere who was Welsh, because two great aunts were named Gladwys and Nelwyn. From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else. My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task. Liz From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications. Mary

His great-grandson was Herbert, Richard’s son-in-law.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: 03 April 2014 11:17
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Afraid not but there is a wiki article. I'm not sure how accurate it is because I only have the vaguest knowledge about him.

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: " " < >
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014, 10:16
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Do any of you know anything about Dafydd Gam? He crops up and didn't Shakespeare use him as one of the Welsh contingent in Henry V? H

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 20:50, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

Oh Liz, I can imagine. This is another of the many things which make those of us with ancestors in UK, just go blind, because you have to add in the wild card of census takers who spell (maybe) what they hear! There must be someone, somewhere who was Welsh, because two great aunts were named Gladwys and Nelwyn.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else.

My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task.

Liz

From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications.

Mary

That's right - that's how he crops up. Gwladus verch Dafydd Gam married Sir William ap Thomas who was father to the Herberts (Will and Rich)and to Stradling's wife. I've also got a Morgan Gam who was the father of Maud verch Morgan Gam who married the original Payn de Turbeville in about 11th century. It's great fun!! H On Thursday, 3 April 2014, 12:49, Stephen <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
His great-grandson was Herbert, Richard's son-in-law. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: 03 April 2014 11:17
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood Afraid not but there is a wiki article. I'm not sure how accurate it is because I only have the vaguest knowledge about him. Liz From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: " " < >
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014, 10:16
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood Do any of you know anything about Dafydd Gam? He crops up and didn't Shakespeare use him as one of the Welsh contingent in Henry V? H On Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 20:50, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote: Oh Liz, I can imagine. This is another of the many things which make those of us with ancestors in UK, just go blind, because you have to add in the wild card of census takers who spell (maybe) what they hear! There must be someone, somewhere who was Welsh, because two great aunts were named Gladwys and Nelwyn. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood Mary, words do change. There are various mutations according to all sorts of complex rules which is why you get Cs changing to Gs (ie coch and gogh for red) and Bs changing to Ps and Ms and who knows what else. My Dad was a first language Welsh speaker (as are some of my cousins) but growing up mostly in England I haven't much of a clue. All I know is, trying to learn it as an adult seemed to me to be an impossible task. Liz From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Interesting facts relating to Wayland Wood

Ap means son of in Welsh and verch/ferch is daughter of. Over the years son of Richard, ap Richard became Pritchard son of Eynon would be ab Eynon and that became Beynon. I don't speak Wesh and it is ages since I did it at school but Welsh grammar is quite tricky if I remember rightly and word endings change. Sir John Turbeville must have been one of the cadet families. So many complications. Mary

Sorry Hilary I don't have any info either.
Mary

In the article that I read Payn Turbeville married Sybil daughter of Morgan Gam. Don't know how accurate it was.
Mary

Hilary, just googled Dafydd Gam and came up with a Wiki page on him. He was descended from a prominent Welsh family in Brecon.He was a grandson of Hywel Fychan ( probably related to Ednyfed Fychan, Llewellyn the Great's Steward who are reportedly the ancestors of H7) It says that his families' power base mainly developed as they were consistently loyal supporters of the de Bohuns. He fought against Owain Glyndwr on the English side and was connected to Henry 4 ( married to Mary Bohun) and supposedly died at Agincourt saving Henry 5 life. Though it does say that that could be a legend.
Stephen said that William Herbert was his descendent. So it occurred to me could they have been involved in the Tudswynfort plot against Richard. especially as H7 was in his household for years. More and more complicated.