Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Lady Eleanor Butler / Talbot

----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler / Talbot


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> I read on Castelli that she had two daughters by Edward IV. Does
anyone know what happened to them? After all, unlike his large
Woodville brood, they were legitimate.

Ya don't say! Not everything on the web is true.

I have NEVER heard any suggestion of two. There is a story of an
Edward of Wigmore, which unfortunately has no solid evidence behind
it. But never a second. Also the (legitimate) status must be
Castelli's own decision.
For what it's worth, the female skeleton from the Carmelite house in
Norwich tentatively identified as Eleanor's has proved on examination
to be:
a) the right age
b) well nourished (ie higher class)
c) never bore children

Marie

PS Is Castelli's the 'Tudorplace' site which attributes a son Anthony
to Anne of Exeter & Thomas St Leger? Anthoy was actually the son of
Thomas's elder brother Ralph (married to a Haute - relatives of the
Woodvilles - hence the name Anthony no doubt).

Marie

Yes, that is Castelli. The legitimacy is my idea because they were pre-contracted and consummation would have sealed the marriage. Castelli is not quite perfect but better than any other free site in my experience.

Perhaps Anne and Sir Thomas had a short-lived son by that name (Anthony), after all Richard and his two married brothers all had first sons called Edward (V,Warwick and Middleham). With such large families, you had to repeat names.

Convents did accept widows or even bored wives so past chastity was not important, only in the future.

I am seeing her plaque in Norwich on the 31st.

Stephen.

a) well nourished, probably high class
b)
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marie
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler /
Talbot
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I read on Castelli that she had two daughters by Edward IV.
Does
> anyone know what happened to them? After all, unlike his large
> Woodville brood, they were legitimate.
>
> Ya don't say! Not everything on the web is true.
>
> I have NEVER heard any suggestion of two. There is a story of an
> Edward of Wigmore, which unfortunately has no solid evidence
behind
> it. But never a second. Also the (legitimate) status must be
> Castelli's own decision.
> For what it's worth, the female skeleton from the Carmelite house
in
> Norwich tentatively identified as Eleanor's has proved on
examination
> to be:
> a) the right age
> b) well nourished (ie higher class)
> c) never bore children
>
> Marie
>
> PS Is Castelli's the 'Tudorplace' site which attributes a son
Anthony
> to Anne of Exeter & Thomas St Leger? Anthoy was actually the son
of
> Thomas's elder brother Ralph (married to a Haute - relatives of
the
> Woodvilles - hence the name Anthony no doubt).
>
> Marie
>
> Yes, that is Castelli. The legitimacy is my idea because they
were pre-contracted and consummation would have sealed the marriage.
Castelli is not quite perfect but better than any other free site in
my experience.
>
> Perhaps Anne and Sir Thomas had a short-lived son by that name
(Anthony), after all Richard and his two married brothers all had
first sons called Edward (V,Warwick and Middleham). With such large
families, you had to repeat names.

No they didn't, Stephen. I hate to have to say it, but I do believe
Castelli is simply unaware of Thomas' elder brother. Anthony was not
a St Leger family name. Ralph was the eldest son (of many) and the
heir, and Anthony was his heir, which is no doubt how Castelli came
across him. I can't stress how dangerous I believe it is to accept
all these children on his lists who don't appear in any other source.
He has produced anenormous database - too much for any one individual
to take on without lots of error. Why don't you ask him where he got
Anthony? Is this also where you got York's eldest child Joan? She
doesn't exist either (at least there is no record of any child before
Anne. I said it before and now I can quote you Laynesmith's MA thesis
on Cecily in defence.)

Marie

Ouch! I hoped to include the old message this relates to, but it
isn't here.
It goes back to a discussion I had with Stephen some while back over
Castelli's claim that Anne of York and Thomas St Leger had a son, Sir
Anythony St Leger. I'm about to chew on some humble pie (just a bit,
not the whole pie).
Castelli gives Anne of York and Thomas St Leger three children:
1. Anthony
2. Anne
3. After their marriage (which must have been after Anne's divorce
came through in 1473): Sir Anthony, born about 1478.

In fact, Anne of York had died in January 1476 giving birth to
daughter Anne, who was her heir - ie her only legitimate offspring by
St Leger, so "Sir" Anthony cannot be theirs.
Castelli makes "Sir Anthony" the husband of an Elizabeth Digby.
The only knighted Anthony I have on my St Leger family tree (from
Burke's Kentish Gentry) has dates 1496 to 1559 and wife Agnes Warham.
He was a descendant of Thomas's brother Ralph.

However (and this is where the humble pie comes in), it looks as
though Thomas St Leger & Anne of York may indeed have had an
illegitimate son Anthony (born 1464/5), as I just found in the
Calendar of Papal Registers a dispensation from the impediment of
illegitimacy dated 1st April 1480 for an "Anthony Senytliger" of the
diocese of Winchester, "who is in or about his sixteenth year, is the
illegitimate son of an unmarried nobleman and a married woman, and
has been made a clerk. . . "

I can't think what other St Leger would have been cheeky enough to
call himself a nobleman in 1480, but Thomas was the widower of a
royal duchess. And in 1464/5 he was single and she was married.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ouch! I hoped to include the old message this relates to, but it
> isn't here.
> It goes back to a discussion I had with Stephen some while back
over
> Castelli's claim that Anne of York and Thomas St Leger had a son,
Sir
> Anythony St Leger. I'm about to chew on some humble pie (just a
bit,
> not the whole pie).
> Castelli gives Anne of York and Thomas St Leger three children:
> 1. Anthony
> 2. Anne
> 3. After their marriage (which must have been after Anne's divorce
> came through in 1473): Sir Anthony, born about 1478.
>
> In fact, Anne of York had died in January 1476 giving birth to
> daughter Anne, who was her heir - ie her only legitimate offspring
by
> St Leger, so "Sir" Anthony cannot be theirs.
> Castelli makes "Sir Anthony" the husband of an Elizabeth Digby.
> The only knighted Anthony I have on my St Leger family tree (from
> Burke's Kentish Gentry) has dates 1496 to 1559 and wife Agnes
Warham.
> He was a descendant of Thomas's brother Ralph.
>
> However (and this is where the humble pie comes in), it looks as
> though Thomas St Leger & Anne of York may indeed have had an
> illegitimate son Anthony (born 1464/5), as I just found in the
> Calendar of Papal Registers a dispensation from the impediment of
> illegitimacy dated 1st April 1480 for an "Anthony Senytliger" of
the
> diocese of Winchester, "who is in or about his sixteenth year, is
the
> illegitimate son of an unmarried nobleman and a married woman, and
> has been made a clerk. . . "
>
> I can't think what other St Leger would have been cheeky enough to
> call himself a nobleman in 1480, but Thomas was the widower of a
> royal duchess. And in 1464/5 he was single and she was married.
>
> Marie
>
I have learned that Castelli usually only errs when the original
sources are confused. The second (Sir) Anthony, born two years after
his mother's death, is an obvious mistake for a cousin (also because
his sister couldn't have been their mother's heir) but the first one
is a possibility. Remember that Castelli spotted the significance of
the Lumley-Conyers dispensation, which neither the original CP, nor
yet Volume XIV has done. Wait until I get my hands on it.

PS If you have been away, have you seen the messages about the Earl
of Harewood, Bertrand Russell etc?

Stephen

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ouch! I hoped to include the old message this relates to, but it
> > isn't here.
> > It goes back to a discussion I had with Stephen some while back
> over
> > Castelli's claim that Anne of York and Thomas St Leger had a son,
> Sir
> > Anythony St Leger. I'm about to chew on some humble pie (just a
> bit,
> > not the whole pie).
> > Castelli gives Anne of York and Thomas St Leger three children:
> > 1. Anthony
> > 2. Anne
> > 3. After their marriage (which must have been after Anne's
divorce
> > came through in 1473): Sir Anthony, born about 1478.
> >
> > In fact, Anne of York had died in January 1476 giving birth to
> > daughter Anne, who was her heir - ie her only legitimate
offspring
> by
> > St Leger, so "Sir" Anthony cannot be theirs.
> > Castelli makes "Sir Anthony" the husband of an Elizabeth Digby.
> > The only knighted Anthony I have on my St Leger family tree (from
> > Burke's Kentish Gentry) has dates 1496 to 1559 and wife Agnes
> Warham.
> > He was a descendant of Thomas's brother Ralph.
> >
> > However (and this is where the humble pie comes in), it looks as
> > though Thomas St Leger & Anne of York may indeed have had an
> > illegitimate son Anthony (born 1464/5), as I just found in the
> > Calendar of Papal Registers a dispensation from the impediment of
> > illegitimacy dated 1st April 1480 for an "Anthony Senytliger" of
> the
> > diocese of Winchester, "who is in or about his sixteenth year, is
> the
> > illegitimate son of an unmarried nobleman and a married woman,
and
> > has been made a clerk. . . "
> >
> > I can't think what other St Leger would have been cheeky enough
to
> > call himself a nobleman in 1480, but Thomas was the widower of a
> > royal duchess. And in 1464/5 he was single and she was married.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> I have learned that Castelli usually only errs when the original
> sources are confused. The second (Sir) Anthony, born two years
after
> his mother's death, is an obvious mistake for a cousin (also
because
> his sister couldn't have been their mother's heir) but the first
one
> is a possibility. Remember that Castelli spotted the significance
of
> the Lumley-Conyers dispensation, which neither the original CP, nor
> yet Volume XIV has done. Wait until I get my hands on it.
>
> PS If you have been away, have you seen the messages about the Earl
> of Harewood, Bertrand Russell etc?

Hi, Stephen. Not yet. I'll definitely take a look later this evening.

I would just like to stress that "Anthony St Leger" may well have
been Anne's son, or he may not. The entry says he was the son of a
single nobleman and a married woman, not a married noblewoman. It
seems to me there are two other possibilities:-
1) Thomas St Leger was the father, but the mother was another married
woman altogether - one without a title (in other words he and the
Duchess hadn't yet become an item);
2) the mother was a Mrs St Leger, or a Mrs Something nee St Leger,
whilst the father was indeed a single nobleman (not Thomas St Leger
at all), and the child took the mother's surname.

I'm a bit draawn to (2), as the parents' names are not declared as
they often are in these cases. If so, it might be possible that the
father was a Woodville. Anthony wasn't a terribly common name in
England, and I don't have any earlier ones on my St Leger family tree
(the Sir Anthony was a generation later and had a Haute mother).

I'm actually starting to creep round to the idea that this young man
maybe wasn't Anne of York's son after all, but I do agree that this
is probably how he got on to Castelli.

I bet a lot more could be discovered if only someone had the time to
do it.

Anyone like to take up the challenge????

Marie

PS I'll be back later with another pontifical gem.