[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Marriages of Richard's nieces
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Marriages of Richard's nieces
2004-10-03 16:19:24
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Marriages of Richard's nieces
>
> Hi again
> I came across a website last njight with more approximate dates of
> birth for the De La Pole children. It seems that Anne was the
second
> daughter and would have been just 5 when Richard negotiated a
> marriage for her with the heir to the Scottish throne. The duke of
> Rothesay would have been around 9 at that time so it makes sense!
> Mim
> :
Hmm... that would have made her only 15 or 16 when Cecily wrote her
will - by which time she was already Prioress of Syon - a very top
religious house. My gut feeling is that she must have been older than
that - she could even have been older than James. It was by no means
unheard of for the bride to be 2 to 4 years older than the groom.
Richard would have had to balance the suitability in age with the
desire of the Scots to have as senior a member of the House of York
as possible. There had, after all been a earlier arrangement for
James to marry Cecily of York, and she was born in 1469 so was 4
years older than James. My guess is that Anne would have been the
oldest de la Pole daughter still unmarried. Given the birth dates you
have from the website, I shouldn't have thought any of them would
have been married by 1484. I'll try to do some more looking up on
this when I next get to a 'proper' library.
By the way, Elizabeth of York and Suffolk were married in 1458, so I
also wonder if there might not have been a child or two born before
John. Perhaps he/she/they did not survive, but perhaps one of these
daughters was a LOT older than is often supposed.
However.....
I do have some family trees which I compiled in the past mainly using
the Complete Peerage. My Lovell one tells me that Henry Lovell Lord
Morley (husband of Elizabeth de la Pole) died after 1489, aged 51.
Now, I don't know how long after 1489 that would have been, but he
was eldest son and his parents were married in 1445, and his sister
Alice was married firstly to Sir William Parker (Richard's Standard
Bearer at Bosworth, their son & heir born 1476), and secondly to
Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443-1524). This suggests to me
that Elizabeth would have been a lot older than suggested by this
website, quite probably, in fact, born before John. So I'm still
inclined to suspect that Anne de la Pole was also a lot older than
this website suggests. If the dates for the boys are right, then
there is a gap for a child around 1469 - if Anne fitted in there,
then it would make her the same age as James' previous prospective
bride, Princess Cecily, and 24/25 when Cecily Neville wrote her will.
As Stephen knows, I'm a terrible damp squib when it comes to some of
these internet genealogies, though I must confess to using them
myself when I can't get to a library.
Marie
... on which subject, Castelli has corrected his Edward IV entry to give his two illegitimate daughters an unknown mother (previously attributed to Lady Eleanor Butler)
Stephen
>
> 1.John De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1462, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Married: Abt 1482 Margaret Fitzalan
> Died: 16 Jun 1487, Battle Of, Stoke, , England
>
> 2.Edward De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1465, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: Bef 8 Oct 1485
>
> 3.Edmund De La Pole
> Born: 1471-1472, Of, Suffolk, England
> Married: Bef 10 Oct 1496, Margaret Scrope, in Bentley, Yorkshire,
> England
> Died: 4 May 1513, Tower Hill, London, Middlesex, England
>
> 4.Elizabeth De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1473, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Elizabeth married Henry Lovell
> Died: After 24 Dec 1489
>
> 5.Humphrey De La Pole
> Born: 1 Aug 1474, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: Bef 15 Feb 1512-1513
>
> 6.William De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1476, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Married: Bef 8 Jun 1501, Katherine Stourton of Stourton, Wiltshire,
> England
> Died: Bef 20 Nov 1539, Tower Of, London, Middlesex, England
>
> 7.Geoffrey De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1478, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: After 1499
>
> 8.Anne De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1479, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
>
> 9.Richard De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1480, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: 24 Feb 1524-1525, Pavia, , Italy
>
> 10. Katherine De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1486, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Katherine married William Stourton
>
> 11.Dorothy De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1488, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
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: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Marriages of Richard's nieces
>
> Hi again
> I came across a website last njight with more approximate dates of
> birth for the De La Pole children. It seems that Anne was the
second
> daughter and would have been just 5 when Richard negotiated a
> marriage for her with the heir to the Scottish throne. The duke of
> Rothesay would have been around 9 at that time so it makes sense!
> Mim
> :
Hmm... that would have made her only 15 or 16 when Cecily wrote her
will - by which time she was already Prioress of Syon - a very top
religious house. My gut feeling is that she must have been older than
that - she could even have been older than James. It was by no means
unheard of for the bride to be 2 to 4 years older than the groom.
Richard would have had to balance the suitability in age with the
desire of the Scots to have as senior a member of the House of York
as possible. There had, after all been a earlier arrangement for
James to marry Cecily of York, and she was born in 1469 so was 4
years older than James. My guess is that Anne would have been the
oldest de la Pole daughter still unmarried. Given the birth dates you
have from the website, I shouldn't have thought any of them would
have been married by 1484. I'll try to do some more looking up on
this when I next get to a 'proper' library.
By the way, Elizabeth of York and Suffolk were married in 1458, so I
also wonder if there might not have been a child or two born before
John. Perhaps he/she/they did not survive, but perhaps one of these
daughters was a LOT older than is often supposed.
However.....
I do have some family trees which I compiled in the past mainly using
the Complete Peerage. My Lovell one tells me that Henry Lovell Lord
Morley (husband of Elizabeth de la Pole) died after 1489, aged 51.
Now, I don't know how long after 1489 that would have been, but he
was eldest son and his parents were married in 1445, and his sister
Alice was married firstly to Sir William Parker (Richard's Standard
Bearer at Bosworth, their son & heir born 1476), and secondly to
Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443-1524). This suggests to me
that Elizabeth would have been a lot older than suggested by this
website, quite probably, in fact, born before John. So I'm still
inclined to suspect that Anne de la Pole was also a lot older than
this website suggests. If the dates for the boys are right, then
there is a gap for a child around 1469 - if Anne fitted in there,
then it would make her the same age as James' previous prospective
bride, Princess Cecily, and 24/25 when Cecily Neville wrote her will.
As Stephen knows, I'm a terrible damp squib when it comes to some of
these internet genealogies, though I must confess to using them
myself when I can't get to a library.
Marie
... on which subject, Castelli has corrected his Edward IV entry to give his two illegitimate daughters an unknown mother (previously attributed to Lady Eleanor Butler)
Stephen
>
> 1.John De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1462, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Married: Abt 1482 Margaret Fitzalan
> Died: 16 Jun 1487, Battle Of, Stoke, , England
>
> 2.Edward De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1465, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: Bef 8 Oct 1485
>
> 3.Edmund De La Pole
> Born: 1471-1472, Of, Suffolk, England
> Married: Bef 10 Oct 1496, Margaret Scrope, in Bentley, Yorkshire,
> England
> Died: 4 May 1513, Tower Hill, London, Middlesex, England
>
> 4.Elizabeth De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1473, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Elizabeth married Henry Lovell
> Died: After 24 Dec 1489
>
> 5.Humphrey De La Pole
> Born: 1 Aug 1474, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: Bef 15 Feb 1512-1513
>
> 6.William De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1476, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Married: Bef 8 Jun 1501, Katherine Stourton of Stourton, Wiltshire,
> England
> Died: Bef 20 Nov 1539, Tower Of, London, Middlesex, England
>
> 7.Geoffrey De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1478, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: After 1499
>
> 8.Anne De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1479, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
>
> 9.Richard De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1480, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Died: 24 Feb 1524-1525, Pavia, , Italy
>
> 10. Katherine De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1486, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> Katherine married William Stourton
>
> 11.Dorothy De La Pole
> Born: Abt 1488, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
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.
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Marriages of Richard's nieces
2004-10-03 18:25:42
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Marriages of Richard's
nieces
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi again
> > I came across a website last njight with more approximate dates
of
> > birth for the De La Pole children. It seems that Anne was the
> second
> > daughter and would have been just 5 when Richard negotiated a
> > marriage for her with the heir to the Scottish throne. The duke
of
> > Rothesay would have been around 9 at that time so it makes
sense!
> > Mim
> > :
>
> Hmm... that would have made her only 15 or 16 when Cecily wrote
her
> will - by which time she was already Prioress of Syon - a very
top
> religious house. My gut feeling is that she must have been older
than
> that - she could even have been older than James. It was by no
means
> unheard of for the bride to be 2 to 4 years older than the groom.
> Richard would have had to balance the suitability in age with the
> desire of the Scots to have as senior a member of the House of
York
> as possible. There had, after all been a earlier arrangement for
> James to marry Cecily of York, and she was born in 1469 so was 4
> years older than James. My guess is that Anne would have been the
> oldest de la Pole daughter still unmarried. Given the birth dates
you
> have from the website, I shouldn't have thought any of them would
> have been married by 1484. I'll try to do some more looking up on
> this when I next get to a 'proper' library.
> By the way, Elizabeth of York and Suffolk were married in 1458,
so I
> also wonder if there might not have been a child or two born
before
> John. Perhaps he/she/they did not survive, but perhaps one of
these
> daughters was a LOT older than is often supposed.
>
> However.....
> I do have some family trees which I compiled in the past mainly
using
> the Complete Peerage. My Lovell one tells me that Henry Lovell
Lord
> Morley (husband of Elizabeth de la Pole) died after 1489, aged
51.
> Now, I don't know how long after 1489 that would have been, but
he
> was eldest son and his parents were married in 1445, and his
sister
> Alice was married firstly to Sir William Parker (Richard's
Standard
> Bearer at Bosworth, their son & heir born 1476), and secondly to
> Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443-1524). This suggests to
me
> that Elizabeth would have been a lot older than suggested by this
> website, quite probably, in fact, born before John. So I'm still
> inclined to suspect that Anne de la Pole was also a lot older
than
> this website suggests. If the dates for the boys are right, then
> there is a gap for a child around 1469 - if Anne fitted in there,
> then it would make her the same age as James' previous
prospective
> bride, Princess Cecily, and 24/25 when Cecily Neville wrote her
will.
>
> As Stephen knows, I'm a terrible damp squib when it comes to some
of
> these internet genealogies, though I must confess to using them
> myself when I can't get to a library.
>
> Marie
>
> ... on which subject, Castelli has corrected his Edward IV entry
to give his two illegitimate daughters an unknown mother (previously
attributed to Lady Eleanor Butler)
Just checked that out. That's good as far as it goes because the
skeleton thought possibly to be Eleanor's had not borne children.
However, I see he attributes Grace to Elizabeth Wayte, Lady Lucy.
There is no evidence who Grace's mother was. She is just on the list
of mourners at Elizabeth Woodville's funeral as a bastard daughter or
Edward IV, and diappears from history again. Also on the same
subject, have you seen Michael Hick's Edward V? He's done some
sterling work on Lady Lucy. Basically, he's decided (as I once
ruminated on this forum) that she was not Elizabeth at all, but
Margaret, the wife of Sir William Lucy of Northants and the step-
sister of Henry Duke of Exeter. Her maiden name was FitzLewis, not
Wayte. The convention until now has been that she must have been a
daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire, but as Hicks rightly points
out, there is no evidence that at all of his having had such a
daughter - and surely if she were a knight's wife there would be
some. It seems that the daughter of Edward IV who married Sir Thomas
Lumley was actually named Margaret, not Elizabeth, as well, and so
Lady Lucy is pretty certainly her mother as is usually surmised.
The trick appears to be that Elizabeth Wayte and Lady Lucy were two
entirely separate mistresses. Arthur originally called himself Wayte,
and seems to have been born towards the end of Edward's life, whereas
Lady Lumley was married in 1480 - the idea that Arthur's mother was
Lady Lucy appears to have been a later error.
Anyway, Lady Margaret Lucy had a very chequered love life. Husband
Sir William Lucy died fighting for Lancaster at Northampton,
supposedly killed by one John Stafford who "loved that knight's wife
and hated him". Anyway, Stafford was himself killed at Towton, and
Margaret went to live in Warwick's household (she was a cousin of
Warwick's - her mother was a Montagu).Well, she had problems getting
her dower and probably appealed to the King - the usual old story.
Probably her liaison with Edward IV belongs to the first couple of
years of his reign, and resulted in Margaret Jr (future Lady Lumley).
Interestingly, Vergil says Edward "assayed to do some unhonest act in
the Earl's [Warwick's] house". Then, apparently, in early 1463 she
got involved with a lawyer, Thomas Danvers. However, Warwick and the
family disapproved of the intended match and she married Warwick's
retainer Thomas Wake of Blisworth instead (he was the man who later
brought the charge of sorcery against Jacquetta Woodville in relation
to Edward's marriage). However, Danvers responded by claiming she was
already secretly contracted to marry him, and being a lawyer he
sued. The case went all the way to the Pope. The outcome isn't
known, but Margaret did bear Thomas Wake a son before she died in
1466. She's "Wake" on her tomb and "Lucy" in the inquisitions post
mortem.
I do wonder whether her secret marriage to Danvers was her first, and
whether, as Hicks hints, Edward may have secretly married quite a few
girls to get them into bed, then silenced them with a simple: it's my
word against yours (and, perhaps, a reminder of the damage he could
do their families). I honestly think the most sensible way to look at
the Woodville marriage is as a similar ploy that went wrong. It's no
wonder Edward and Elizabeth didn't proceed with a second public
marriage as they strictly speaking should have done. Goodness knows
how many other brides would have shown up.
>
> Stephen
> >
> > 1.John De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1462, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Abt 1482 Margaret Fitzalan
> > Died: 16 Jun 1487, Battle Of, Stoke, , England
> >
> > 2.Edward De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1465, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: Bef 8 Oct 1485
> >
> > 3.Edmund De La Pole
> > Born: 1471-1472, Of, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Bef 10 Oct 1496, Margaret Scrope, in Bentley,
Yorkshire,
> > England
> > Died: 4 May 1513, Tower Hill, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > 4.Elizabeth De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1473, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Elizabeth married Henry Lovell
> > Died: After 24 Dec 1489
> >
> > 5.Humphrey De La Pole
> > Born: 1 Aug 1474, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: Bef 15 Feb 1512-1513
> >
> > 6.William De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1476, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Bef 8 Jun 1501, Katherine Stourton of Stourton,
Wiltshire,
> > England
> > Died: Bef 20 Nov 1539, Tower Of, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > 7.Geoffrey De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1478, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: After 1499
> >
> > 8.Anne De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1479, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> >
> > 9.Richard De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1480, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: 24 Feb 1524-1525, Pavia, , Italy
> >
> > 10. Katherine De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1486, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Katherine married William Stourton
> >
> > 11.Dorothy De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1488, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Marriages of Richard's
nieces
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi again
> > I came across a website last njight with more approximate dates
of
> > birth for the De La Pole children. It seems that Anne was the
> second
> > daughter and would have been just 5 when Richard negotiated a
> > marriage for her with the heir to the Scottish throne. The duke
of
> > Rothesay would have been around 9 at that time so it makes
sense!
> > Mim
> > :
>
> Hmm... that would have made her only 15 or 16 when Cecily wrote
her
> will - by which time she was already Prioress of Syon - a very
top
> religious house. My gut feeling is that she must have been older
than
> that - she could even have been older than James. It was by no
means
> unheard of for the bride to be 2 to 4 years older than the groom.
> Richard would have had to balance the suitability in age with the
> desire of the Scots to have as senior a member of the House of
York
> as possible. There had, after all been a earlier arrangement for
> James to marry Cecily of York, and she was born in 1469 so was 4
> years older than James. My guess is that Anne would have been the
> oldest de la Pole daughter still unmarried. Given the birth dates
you
> have from the website, I shouldn't have thought any of them would
> have been married by 1484. I'll try to do some more looking up on
> this when I next get to a 'proper' library.
> By the way, Elizabeth of York and Suffolk were married in 1458,
so I
> also wonder if there might not have been a child or two born
before
> John. Perhaps he/she/they did not survive, but perhaps one of
these
> daughters was a LOT older than is often supposed.
>
> However.....
> I do have some family trees which I compiled in the past mainly
using
> the Complete Peerage. My Lovell one tells me that Henry Lovell
Lord
> Morley (husband of Elizabeth de la Pole) died after 1489, aged
51.
> Now, I don't know how long after 1489 that would have been, but
he
> was eldest son and his parents were married in 1445, and his
sister
> Alice was married firstly to Sir William Parker (Richard's
Standard
> Bearer at Bosworth, their son & heir born 1476), and secondly to
> Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443-1524). This suggests to
me
> that Elizabeth would have been a lot older than suggested by this
> website, quite probably, in fact, born before John. So I'm still
> inclined to suspect that Anne de la Pole was also a lot older
than
> this website suggests. If the dates for the boys are right, then
> there is a gap for a child around 1469 - if Anne fitted in there,
> then it would make her the same age as James' previous
prospective
> bride, Princess Cecily, and 24/25 when Cecily Neville wrote her
will.
>
> As Stephen knows, I'm a terrible damp squib when it comes to some
of
> these internet genealogies, though I must confess to using them
> myself when I can't get to a library.
>
> Marie
>
> ... on which subject, Castelli has corrected his Edward IV entry
to give his two illegitimate daughters an unknown mother (previously
attributed to Lady Eleanor Butler)
Just checked that out. That's good as far as it goes because the
skeleton thought possibly to be Eleanor's had not borne children.
However, I see he attributes Grace to Elizabeth Wayte, Lady Lucy.
There is no evidence who Grace's mother was. She is just on the list
of mourners at Elizabeth Woodville's funeral as a bastard daughter or
Edward IV, and diappears from history again. Also on the same
subject, have you seen Michael Hick's Edward V? He's done some
sterling work on Lady Lucy. Basically, he's decided (as I once
ruminated on this forum) that she was not Elizabeth at all, but
Margaret, the wife of Sir William Lucy of Northants and the step-
sister of Henry Duke of Exeter. Her maiden name was FitzLewis, not
Wayte. The convention until now has been that she must have been a
daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire, but as Hicks rightly points
out, there is no evidence that at all of his having had such a
daughter - and surely if she were a knight's wife there would be
some. It seems that the daughter of Edward IV who married Sir Thomas
Lumley was actually named Margaret, not Elizabeth, as well, and so
Lady Lucy is pretty certainly her mother as is usually surmised.
The trick appears to be that Elizabeth Wayte and Lady Lucy were two
entirely separate mistresses. Arthur originally called himself Wayte,
and seems to have been born towards the end of Edward's life, whereas
Lady Lumley was married in 1480 - the idea that Arthur's mother was
Lady Lucy appears to have been a later error.
Anyway, Lady Margaret Lucy had a very chequered love life. Husband
Sir William Lucy died fighting for Lancaster at Northampton,
supposedly killed by one John Stafford who "loved that knight's wife
and hated him". Anyway, Stafford was himself killed at Towton, and
Margaret went to live in Warwick's household (she was a cousin of
Warwick's - her mother was a Montagu).Well, she had problems getting
her dower and probably appealed to the King - the usual old story.
Probably her liaison with Edward IV belongs to the first couple of
years of his reign, and resulted in Margaret Jr (future Lady Lumley).
Interestingly, Vergil says Edward "assayed to do some unhonest act in
the Earl's [Warwick's] house". Then, apparently, in early 1463 she
got involved with a lawyer, Thomas Danvers. However, Warwick and the
family disapproved of the intended match and she married Warwick's
retainer Thomas Wake of Blisworth instead (he was the man who later
brought the charge of sorcery against Jacquetta Woodville in relation
to Edward's marriage). However, Danvers responded by claiming she was
already secretly contracted to marry him, and being a lawyer he
sued. The case went all the way to the Pope. The outcome isn't
known, but Margaret did bear Thomas Wake a son before she died in
1466. She's "Wake" on her tomb and "Lucy" in the inquisitions post
mortem.
I do wonder whether her secret marriage to Danvers was her first, and
whether, as Hicks hints, Edward may have secretly married quite a few
girls to get them into bed, then silenced them with a simple: it's my
word against yours (and, perhaps, a reminder of the damage he could
do their families). I honestly think the most sensible way to look at
the Woodville marriage is as a similar ploy that went wrong. It's no
wonder Edward and Elizabeth didn't proceed with a second public
marriage as they strictly speaking should have done. Goodness knows
how many other brides would have shown up.
>
> Stephen
> >
> > 1.John De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1462, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Abt 1482 Margaret Fitzalan
> > Died: 16 Jun 1487, Battle Of, Stoke, , England
> >
> > 2.Edward De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1465, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: Bef 8 Oct 1485
> >
> > 3.Edmund De La Pole
> > Born: 1471-1472, Of, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Bef 10 Oct 1496, Margaret Scrope, in Bentley,
Yorkshire,
> > England
> > Died: 4 May 1513, Tower Hill, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > 4.Elizabeth De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1473, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Elizabeth married Henry Lovell
> > Died: After 24 Dec 1489
> >
> > 5.Humphrey De La Pole
> > Born: 1 Aug 1474, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: Bef 15 Feb 1512-1513
> >
> > 6.William De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1476, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Married: Bef 8 Jun 1501, Katherine Stourton of Stourton,
Wiltshire,
> > England
> > Died: Bef 20 Nov 1539, Tower Of, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > 7.Geoffrey De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1478, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: After 1499
> >
> > 8.Anne De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1479, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> >
> > 9.Richard De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1480, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Died: 24 Feb 1524-1525, Pavia, , Italy
> >
> > 10. Katherine De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1486, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
> > Katherine married William Stourton
> >
> > 11.Dorothy De La Pole
> > Born: Abt 1488, Of, Wingfield, Suffolk, England
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.