Perkin Warbeck's son

I have just finished reading "Perkin" by Anne Wroe, a most
interesting read. I had never before come across a reference to
Warbeck having a son or even children plural. I gather two descent
brances took the patronym Perkins, and came from parts of Wales
where Henry Tudor may have had the boy spirited away at age about
one. When Warbeck was captured after Taunton his wife was described
as being in mourning, possibly for the loss of a second baby. Does
anyone have any information on these descendants?

As for being quiet, my own excuse is one week only from getting back
from Oz to cram in all my prep for back to school.
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> I have just finished reading "Perkin" by Anne Wroe, a most
> interesting read. I had never before come across a reference to
> Warbeck having a son or even children plural. I gather two descent
> brances took the patronym Perkins, and came from parts of Wales
> where Henry Tudor may have had the boy spirited away at age about
> one. When Warbeck was captured after Taunton his wife was described
> as being in mourning, possibly for the loss of a second baby. Does
> anyone have any information on these descendants?
>
> As for being quiet, my own excuse is one week only from getting
back
> from Oz to cram in all my prep for back to school.
> Brunhild

I'm sorry I'm a bit vague on this one, but I know that it is by no
means universally accepted that "Warbeck" and Katherine Gordon had a
child - that is based on Anne Wroe's interpretation of the evidence.
I've not really looked at the evidence myself so wouldn't like to
pass verdict. It is the case, however, that Katherine married four
more times and had no children by any of her subsequent husbands.
I don't know what the basis of this Welsh family's claim is, but it's
worth bearing in mind that a lot of middle class families invented
illustrious or interesting pedigrees for themselves, and that most
Welsh surnames consist of anglicisation of the original patronymic
(the Welsh didn't use surnames traditionally, but some sort of
identifying tag, usually the father's name). So 'Perkins' would very
much fall into that category. It's surely not such an unusual name
either - my teacher when I was aged 7 was a Mrs Perkins (she was very
nice).
So it's possible they had a child, and that this Perkins familly are
the descendants, but by no means certain. I know there's been stuff
on this in past Ricardians, but I'm afraid I don't have time to dig
them out at present.

Marie (with the cold water again)

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> I have just finished reading "Perkin" by Anne Wroe, a most
> interesting read. I had never before come across a reference to
> Warbeck having a son or even children plural. I gather two descent
> brances took the patronym Perkins, and came from parts of Wales
> where Henry Tudor may have had the boy spirited away at age about
> one. When Warbeck was captured after Taunton his wife was described
> as being in mourning, possibly for the loss of a second baby. Does
> anyone have any information on these descendants?

I have a vague memory of reading that he and Katherine Gordon had two
daughters, but I don't recall where I read that.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > I have just finished reading "Perkin" by Anne Wroe, a most
> > interesting read. I had never before come across a reference to
> > Warbeck having a son or even children plural. I gather two
descent
> > brances took the patronym Perkins, and came from parts of Wales
> > where Henry Tudor may have had the boy spirited away at age about
> > one. When Warbeck was captured after Taunton his wife was
described
> > as being in mourning, possibly for the loss of a second baby.
Does
> > anyone have any information on these descendants?
>
> I have a vague memory of reading that he and Katherine Gordon had
two
> daughters, but I don't recall where I read that.
>
> Katy

Well, if they were daughters their families wouldn't now be called
Perkins, which muddies the waters even further. I must admit my gut
feeling on the Perkins families is that this is hooey. It just seems
that for Henry to have the child (a boy in this scenario) spirited
away in infancy, and then for his adoptive parents to tell him who he
was and give him his father's name, would be to destroy the whole
point of the exercise. If there were a child and Henry wanted his
existence obscured, he would have made sure he grew up never knowing
his true identity. If not, there would always be the risk that he or
his descendants would believe his father's claim to have been Richard
Duke of York and cause trouble for future kings. One thing Henry was
very good at was coming up with stories to obscure uncomfortable
truths.
This of course is a separate issue from any documentary evidence that
Katherine bore 'Perkin' a child.

Marie

>
> Well, if they were daughters their families wouldn't now be called
> Perkins, which muddies the waters even further. I must admit my
gut
> feeling on the Perkins families is that this is hooey. It just
seems
> that for Henry to have the child (a boy in this scenario) spirited
> away in infancy, and then for his adoptive parents to tell him who
he
> was and give him his father's name, would be to destroy the whole
> point of the exercise. If there were a child and Henry wanted his
> existence obscured, he would have made sure he grew up never
knowing
> his true identity. If not, there would always be the risk that he
or
> his descendants would believe his father's claim to have been
Richard
> Duke of York and cause trouble for future kings. One thing Henry
was
> very good at was coming up with stories to obscure uncomfortable
> truths.


That was my own gut reaction too, and I would dearly like to see the
evidence these suggestions were based on because it's very
interesting - or potentially so. Presumably living descendants
might contain valid dna??? Wroe also reported where Warbeck was
buried, though I can't remember where this minute. Surely if the
royal family disclaim him as a mamber there would be no problem
getting his dna? Or am I to take it form a previoous comment (Katy?)
that his grave has been lost? She suggested he may have been
transferred to Scotland.

And a quick plea for help - has anyone recorded Monday's Jones prog
with R3? We had an accident with our copy when a teacher
accidentally deleted it and my vid didn't work on Monday -and I
desperatly want those 10 minutes for the new A level group. If
anyone can help me out I would much appreciate it and return
immediately!
Brunhild

PS don't email me on the addy at the top as I rarely use - I had to
delete the other (ntlworld) from the list because I was being
bombarded by junk mail.

> This of course is a separate issue from any documentary evidence
that
> Katherine bore 'Perkin' a child.
>
> Marie

> That was my own gut reaction too, and I would dearly like to see
the
> evidence these suggestions were based on because it's very
> interesting - or potentially so. Presumably living descendants
> might contain valid dna??? Wroe also reported where Warbeck was
> buried, though I can't remember where this minute. Surely if the
> royal family disclaim him as a mamber there would be no problem
> getting his dna? Or am I to take it form a previoous comment
(Katy?)
> that his grave has been lost? She suggested he may have been
> transferred to Scotland.


After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch Church
on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of
the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit
during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were
reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain.

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > That was my own gut reaction too, and I would dearly like to see
> the
> > evidence these suggestions were based on because it's very
> > interesting - or potentially so. Presumably living descendants
> > might contain valid dna??? Wroe also reported where Warbeck was
> > buried, though I can't remember where this minute. Surely if the
> > royal family disclaim him as a mamber there would be no problem
> > getting his dna? Or am I to take it form a previoous comment
> (Katy?)
> > that his grave has been lost? She suggested he may have been
> > transferred to Scotland.
>
>
> After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
> Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
Church
> on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of
> the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit
> during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup
were
> reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain.

That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
had an anonymous burial in the churchyard.
So any DNA testing of the Perkins family could only be along the
lines of a comparison with Edward IV, which would only give a
positive result if a) the Perkins family were descended from Perkin
Warbeck, AND b)Perkin Warbeck were Edward IV's son. In the (likely)
event of a non-match it would be impossible to tell what the reason
was.

Marie

Marie