Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A mysterious infant

----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: A mysterious infant


--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> There is a lovely portrait of Winifred Pole in Ruvigny. In his
> introduction, however, he mentions a later (Exeter) volume
> incorporating the Suffolk line. Perhaps he can solve this mystery:
> Edward de la Pole, son of the Earl of Lincoln, died young but what
> are the years of his birth and death?
> i) Born by 1487/8 (his father died on 16 June).
> ii) Died by 1491 (otherwise he would have been the 3rd Duke of
> Suffolk).
> iii) Not born until: (whatever year Lincoln married Margaret
> Fitzalan).
> Are there any reliable clues elsewhere? It would certainly "colour"
> our perception of Richard's reign.
>
> Stephen

He's not difficult to trace. Offhand all I can tell you off my tree
is that he was Archdeacon of Richmond and died before 8 October 1485.
So he was another clerical Pole. I think he was the one who was
regarded as something of a prodigy at Oxford. Since he was the second
of many sons I assume he would have been born by 1465. I'm sure you
won't find it hard to get info on him.

Marie

PS. What did you mean by point iii?

Sorry, Marie, I meant John of Lincoln's SON, not his nephew, hence the words "Infant" and "died young". He is mentioned on Castelli and Tompsett and other sources know of him.
My real question: was he alive at the time of Bosworth; was Richard appointing an heir with a child of his own?

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.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marie
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: A mysterious infant
>
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > There is a lovely portrait of Winifred Pole in Ruvigny. In his
> > introduction, however, he mentions a later (Exeter) volume
> > incorporating the Suffolk line. Perhaps he can solve this
mystery:
> > Edward de la Pole, son of the Earl of Lincoln, died young but
what
> > are the years of his birth and death?
> > i) Born by 1487/8 (his father died on 16 June).
> > ii) Died by 1491 (otherwise he would have been the 3rd Duke of
> > Suffolk).
> > iii) Not born until: (whatever year Lincoln married Margaret
> > Fitzalan).
> > Are there any reliable clues elsewhere? It would
certainly "colour"
> > our perception of Richard's reign.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> He's not difficult to trace. Offhand all I can tell you off my
tree
> is that he was Archdeacon of Richmond and died before 8 October
1485.
> So he was another clerical Pole. I think he was the one who was
> regarded as something of a prodigy at Oxford. Since he was the
second
> of many sons I assume he would have been born by 1465. I'm sure
you
> won't find it hard to get info on him.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. What did you mean by point iii?
>
> Sorry, Marie, I meant John of Lincoln's SON, not his nephew,
hence the words "Infant" and "died young". He is mentioned on
Castelli and Tompsett and other sources know of him.
> My real question: was he alive at the time of Bosworth; was
Richard appointing an heir with a child of his own?

Sorry, I should have read more carefully.
Do you know their source for this child? Couldn't you just email
Castelli and ask him? I've just looked at Thompsett and he doesn't
give any dates for this child, or any source. His bibliography
suggests his main sources for this period are a book by Alison Weir
(help!) and a two-volume work by James Ramsey. Probably worth looking
up. What would worry me is that Castelli has copied Thompsett, or
vice versa, and that the child originated by confusion - like mine -
with Lincoln's brother Edward. I see, for instance, that Tompsett is
still posting York & Cecily's fictitious first child 'Joan'. I'd
start by emailing them and asking their sources, and faiing feedback
try Tompsett's bibliography - much quicker to trace the sources
backwards than to scour the record repositories for more info on
someone who may not have existed. I'd be interested if you do find a
genuine contemporary source, but I'm a little suspicious because of
lack of dates etc, and because Lincoln was probably only 20/21 in
1483 when Edward IV died, and a child born after 26 June 1483 would
more likely have been named Richard than Edward.

Marie

>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> 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 , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: marie
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: A mysterious infant
> >
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > > There is a lovely portrait of Winifred Pole in Ruvigny. In
his
> > > introduction, however, he mentions a later (Exeter) volume
> > > incorporating the Suffolk line. Perhaps he can solve this
> mystery:
> > > Edward de la Pole, son of the Earl of Lincoln, died young but
> what
> > > are the years of his birth and death?
> > > i) Born by 1487/8 (his father died on 16 June).
> > > ii) Died by 1491 (otherwise he would have been the 3rd Duke
of
> > > Suffolk).
> > > iii) Not born until: (whatever year Lincoln married Margaret
> > > Fitzalan).
> > > Are there any reliable clues elsewhere? It would
> certainly "colour"
> > > our perception of Richard's reign.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > He's not difficult to trace. Offhand all I can tell you off my
> tree
> > is that he was Archdeacon of Richmond and died before 8 October
> 1485.
> > So he was another clerical Pole. I think he was the one who was
> > regarded as something of a prodigy at Oxford. Since he was the
> second
> > of many sons I assume he would have been born by 1465. I'm sure
> you
> > won't find it hard to get info on him.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. What did you mean by point iii?
> >
> > Sorry, Marie, I meant John of Lincoln's SON, not his nephew,
> hence the words "Infant" and "died young". He is mentioned on
> Castelli and Tompsett and other sources know of him.
> > My real question: was he alive at the time of Bosworth; was
> Richard appointing an heir with a child of his own?
>
> Sorry, I should have read more carefully.
> Do you know their source for this child? Couldn't you just email
> Castelli and ask him? I've just looked at Thompsett and he doesn't
> give any dates for this child, or any source. His bibliography
> suggests his main sources for this period are a book by Alison Weir
> (help!) and a two-volume work by James Ramsey. Probably worth
looking
> up. What would worry me is that Castelli has copied Thompsett, or
> vice versa, and that the child originated by confusion - like mine -

> with Lincoln's brother Edward. I see, for instance, that Tompsett
is
> still posting York & Cecily's fictitious first child 'Joan'. I'd
> start by emailing them and asking their sources, and faiing
feedback
> try Tompsett's bibliography - much quicker to trace the sources
> backwards than to scour the record repositories for more info on
> someone who may not have existed. I'd be interested if you do find
a
> genuine contemporary source, but I'm a little suspicious because of
> lack of dates etc, and because Lincoln was probably only 20/21 in
> 1483 when Edward IV died, and a child born after 26 June 1483 would
> more likely have been named Richard than Edward.
>
> Marie
>
> > I think I saw him in the Complete Peerage, without dates, but I
need to look again, perhaps. Even if Lincoln's Countess was pregnant
during Bosworth, if Richard knew of it, it is important.

PS My group published the following poem this month. It consists of
only eight words of one syllable each and explains the consequences
of Anne Boleyn's refusal to become Henry VIII's mistress. All of his
mistresses died of natural causes, so it seems:

"No wed, no bed" - cost Anne her head.

Stephen
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> > 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 , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: marie
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: A mysterious infant
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "stephenmlark"
> > > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > > > There is a lovely portrait of Winifred Pole in Ruvigny. In
> his
> > > > introduction, however, he mentions a later (Exeter) volume
> > > > incorporating the Suffolk line. Perhaps he can solve this
> > mystery:
> > > > Edward de la Pole, son of the Earl of Lincoln, died young
but
> > what
> > > > are the years of his birth and death?
> > > > i) Born by 1487/8 (his father died on 16 June).
> > > > ii) Died by 1491 (otherwise he would have been the 3rd
Duke
> of
> > > > Suffolk).
> > > > iii) Not born until: (whatever year Lincoln married
Margaret
> > > > Fitzalan).
> > > > Are there any reliable clues elsewhere? It would
> > certainly "colour"
> > > > our perception of Richard's reign.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > He's not difficult to trace. Offhand all I can tell you off
my
> > tree
> > > is that he was Archdeacon of Richmond and died before 8
October
> > 1485.
> > > So he was another clerical Pole. I think he was the one who
was
> > > regarded as something of a prodigy at Oxford. Since he was
the
> > second
> > > of many sons I assume he would have been born by 1465. I'm
sure
> > you
> > > won't find it hard to get info on him.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > PS. What did you mean by point iii?
> > >
> > > Sorry, Marie, I meant John of Lincoln's SON, not his nephew,
> > hence the words "Infant" and "died young". He is mentioned on
> > Castelli and Tompsett and other sources know of him.
> > > My real question: was he alive at the time of Bosworth; was
> > Richard appointing an heir with a child of his own?
> >
> > Sorry, I should have read more carefully.
> > Do you know their source for this child? Couldn't you just email
> > Castelli and ask him? I've just looked at Thompsett and he
doesn't
> > give any dates for this child, or any source. His bibliography
> > suggests his main sources for this period are a book by Alison
Weir
> > (help!) and a two-volume work by James Ramsey. Probably worth
> looking
> > up. What would worry me is that Castelli has copied Thompsett, or
> > vice versa, and that the child originated by confusion - like
mine -
>
> > with Lincoln's brother Edward. I see, for instance, that Tompsett
> is
> > still posting York & Cecily's fictitious first child 'Joan'. I'd
> > start by emailing them and asking their sources, and faiing
> feedback
> > try Tompsett's bibliography - much quicker to trace the sources
> > backwards than to scour the record repositories for more info on
> > someone who may not have existed. I'd be interested if you do
find
> a
> > genuine contemporary source, but I'm a little suspicious because
of
> > lack of dates etc, and because Lincoln was probably only 20/21 in
> > 1483 when Edward IV died, and a child born after 26 June 1483
would
> > more likely have been named Richard than Edward.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > > I think I saw him in the Complete Peerage, without dates, but
I
> need to look again, perhaps. Even if Lincoln's Countess was
pregnant
> during Bosworth, if Richard knew of it, it is important.


Well, obviously it is important; which it is why although it's a
tempting idea it's important to establish whether the child really
existed first. I've managed to discover a bit more on the net
tonight. Alison Weir is the source of the fictitious Joan of York,
but not of Lincoln's child: she does not attribute any children to
him. I was under the impression that I had checked the CP, but I may
be wrong. Would be grateful if you could check again. If the child is
in such an obvious source, however, it is a bit surprising that Weir
doesn't have him (or maybe it isn't).

Marie

PS If you're seeing Alison Weir at the Norfolk day and want a
question for her, why don't you ask her if she could contact these
websites and tell them she made a mistake?

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> >
> PS If you're seeing Alison Weir at the Norfolk day and want a
> question for her, why don't you ask her if she could contact these
> websites and tell them she made a mistake?

Think she would? She doesn't seem the sort.

Katy