Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder
2004-07-10 22:08:59
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder: developments
>
> Second, the Clarence attainder, applied in 1477, was reversed in
c.1502, as we know.
> Warwick was attainted in 1504 and this was reversed in 1509/10 (H8
in a "new broom" mood")?
It is rather curious that H7 didn't attaint Warwick before his
execution. The reversal of Clarence's seems odd as it potentially
reinstates a rival family branch into the succession.
> Lady Margaret was part of a general 1538 attainder. This was
effectively reversed in either 1553-4 (Mary's gratitude to her
mentor?) or during Elizabeth's reign.
Do we have nothing more fefinite than this either or?
I am sorry I am not around much these days - have been working madly
on my paper, first draught complete, time to draw breath, but second
draught looks likely to be even stiffer work. Does anyone have
access to Documents Illustrating the "Impeachment of the Duke of
Buckingham in 1626", Camden Society, 1889, ed. S.R. Gardiner at all?
I can't traipse up and down to London and there are some quite
academic people here who may use a library in a university which has
it. If anyone could double check something for me I would be
eternally grateful.
B
I shall have a go!
Stephen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder: developments
>
> Second, the Clarence attainder, applied in 1477, was reversed in
c.1502, as we know.
> Warwick was attainted in 1504 and this was reversed in 1509/10 (H8
in a "new broom" mood")?
It is rather curious that H7 didn't attaint Warwick before his
execution. The reversal of Clarence's seems odd as it potentially
reinstates a rival family branch into the succession.
> Lady Margaret was part of a general 1538 attainder. This was
effectively reversed in either 1553-4 (Mary's gratitude to her
mentor?) or during Elizabeth's reign.
Do we have nothing more fefinite than this either or?
I am sorry I am not around much these days - have been working madly
on my paper, first draught complete, time to draw breath, but second
draught looks likely to be even stiffer work. Does anyone have
access to Documents Illustrating the "Impeachment of the Duke of
Buckingham in 1626", Camden Society, 1889, ed. S.R. Gardiner at all?
I can't traipse up and down to London and there are some quite
academic people here who may use a library in a university which has
it. If anyone could double check something for me I would be
eternally grateful.
B
I shall have a go!
Stephen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder
2004-07-11 13:13:10
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder: developments
>
> Second, the Clarence attainder, applied in 1477, was reversed in
c.1502, as we know.
> Warwick was attainted in 1504 and this was reversed in 1509/10 (H8
in a "new broom" mood")?
It is rather curious that H7 didn't attaint Warwick before his
execution. The reversal of Clarence's seems odd as it potentially
reinstates a rival family branch into the succession.
At the time of Warwick's execution, he was under his father's attainder. He left no heirs and no property (except what he may have inherited from his Neville grandmother).
> Lady Margaret was part of a general 1538 attainder. This was
effectively reversed in either 1553-4 (Mary's gratitude to her
mentor?) or during Elizabeth's reign.
Do we have nothing more fefinite than this either or?
It was a general attainder, effectively reversed but not explicitly, hence the question mark over the timing. See Powys-Lybbe's website: www.south_frm.demon.co.uk, which has a fascinating article on the subject.
I am sorry I am not around much these days - have been working madly
on my paper, first draught complete, time to draw breath, but second
draught looks likely to be even stiffer work. Does anyone have
access to Documents Illustrating the "Impeachment of the Duke of
Buckingham in 1626", Camden Society, 1889, ed. S.R. Gardiner at all?
I can't traipse up and down to London and there are some quite
academic people here who may use a library in a university which has
it. If anyone could double check something for me I would be
eternally grateful.
B
As I said yesterday, I shall have a go at this at my next library visit. Remind me of your full subject again.
I note that even the new Buckinghams couldn't keep out of trouble.
S
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Genealogy and Acts of Attainder: developments
>
> Second, the Clarence attainder, applied in 1477, was reversed in
c.1502, as we know.
> Warwick was attainted in 1504 and this was reversed in 1509/10 (H8
in a "new broom" mood")?
It is rather curious that H7 didn't attaint Warwick before his
execution. The reversal of Clarence's seems odd as it potentially
reinstates a rival family branch into the succession.
At the time of Warwick's execution, he was under his father's attainder. He left no heirs and no property (except what he may have inherited from his Neville grandmother).
> Lady Margaret was part of a general 1538 attainder. This was
effectively reversed in either 1553-4 (Mary's gratitude to her
mentor?) or during Elizabeth's reign.
Do we have nothing more fefinite than this either or?
It was a general attainder, effectively reversed but not explicitly, hence the question mark over the timing. See Powys-Lybbe's website: www.south_frm.demon.co.uk, which has a fascinating article on the subject.
I am sorry I am not around much these days - have been working madly
on my paper, first draught complete, time to draw breath, but second
draught looks likely to be even stiffer work. Does anyone have
access to Documents Illustrating the "Impeachment of the Duke of
Buckingham in 1626", Camden Society, 1889, ed. S.R. Gardiner at all?
I can't traipse up and down to London and there are some quite
academic people here who may use a library in a university which has
it. If anyone could double check something for me I would be
eternally grateful.
B
As I said yesterday, I shall have a go at this at my next library visit. Remind me of your full subject again.
I note that even the new Buckinghams couldn't keep out of trouble.
S
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
More genealogical developments
2004-07-24 20:37:23
Sir William Pole (1569-1635) is in Burke's as his family's baronetcy
is still extant. Although he is on Castelli, Lundy etc, they do not
mention his ancestors. Burke's does and he cannot be a grandson of
either Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur.
His grandfather is listed as being a Pole from Cheshire - where were
Sir Richard and Geoffrey, his father, from?
is still extant. Although he is on Castelli, Lundy etc, they do not
mention his ancestors. Burke's does and he cannot be a grandson of
either Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur.
His grandfather is listed as being a Pole from Cheshire - where were
Sir Richard and Geoffrey, his father, from?
Re: More genealogical developments
2004-07-24 23:31:58
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Sir William Pole (1569-1635) is in Burke's as his family's
baronetcy
> is still extant. Although he is on Castelli, Lundy etc, they do not
> mention his ancestors. Burke's does and he cannot be a grandson of
> either Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur.
> His grandfather is listed as being a Pole from Cheshire - where
were
> Sir Richard and Geoffrey, his father, from?
Sorry, you've lost me.
1) Who exactly does Burke's say he was son/descendant of?
2) Which Sir Richard, and Geoffrey whose father?
I may be able to fiond out on Cheshire Folks.
Marie
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Sir William Pole (1569-1635) is in Burke's as his family's
baronetcy
> is still extant. Although he is on Castelli, Lundy etc, they do not
> mention his ancestors. Burke's does and he cannot be a grandson of
> either Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur.
> His grandfather is listed as being a Pole from Cheshire - where
were
> Sir Richard and Geoffrey, his father, from?
Sorry, you've lost me.
1) Who exactly does Burke's say he was son/descendant of?
2) Which Sir Richard, and Geoffrey whose father?
I may be able to fiond out on Cheshire Folks.
Marie
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.