Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

I was wondering if the 'tute' used in the reference to Edward V could mean that he died of natural causes? In the Latin online dictionary the translation was 'safe,' 'safely' and 'without danger.' He seems less certain about Richard of Shrewsbury.

I do find the it intriguing that he mentions that Edward died in June. In addition to the Anlaby Cartualary, John Ashdown Hill also found a record in Colchester that suggested something similar:

http://cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf

Nico

Spot on, Pansy - the correct reading is "in iuuentute" - ie in iuventute, 'in youth'. The word has indeed been split because of lack of space - this was quite common - and the bar over the e of the "iuue" is the standard omission mark denoting that it should be followed by an "n". Also, David, if you're reading this, it is quite incorrect to state that this roll belonged to Lincoln and therefore provides proof that Lincoln believed both Princes had died during Richard's reign. I don't go with Philip Morgan's idea that the roll may have been in the family for years, being continually added to, because, quite simply, the writing and the date of costumes & hairstyles throughout the roll are all of a piece, with the square-cut necklines of the 1500s and slightly longer men's hair than in the Yorkist period. In fact, it appears to date from Henry VIII's reign since it refers to William de la Pole's incarceration by Henry VII and beheading by his son. It is believed by JR library to have been made on the continent.

So all it tells us about the Princes is that the de la Poles were, sometime during the first decade of Henry VIII's reign, representing them as having both died without issue. Possibly the phrase 'in iuventute' applied only to Edward V may indicate that he was believed to have died some time before his younger brother.

David, please, please correct this. The roll is very interesting, probably a propaganda tool for the pretensions of Richard de la Pole 'The White Rose'; but it has nothing to do with John de la Pole.

Marie

Hi Mac,

I did in fact post to the page of David Durose's article straight afterwards - I was that impatient with it because he's so quick to make capital out of what he sees as the ignorance of Ricardians, and it's frustrating to see just how careless he is with his own facts.

Quite apart from the fact that the roll contains information that takes us far beyond the lifetime of John, Earl of Lincoln, 'in iunie' is an impossible reading of the end of that fourth line of Edward V's entry (Jan, please correct me if any of the following is not right):-

1) There are only four minims (the upstrokes that formed i's, u's, m's and n's), whereas 'iunie' would require five;

2) 'In Iunie' wouldn't be correct for 'in June' anyway. First, the dative of 'iunius' would be 'iunio'; secondly, it was normal to include the word for month, i.e. the normal thing in Latin would be to write 'in the month of June', which comes out as 'in mensis Iunii'. I suppose you could argue that the 'mensis' could have been dropped for reasons of space, but the case ending still wouldn't be right.

I could also add that David's interpretation of the roll's failure to acknowledge Edward IV's eldest son as a king, with the red line of succession going straight to Richard, does not suggest he was being treated as already dead. That line not only bypasses Edward V and his brother but also Elizabeth of York, who was clearly very much alive throughout Richard's reign, and the reason is simply that Richard and the de la Poles held Edward IV's issue to be barred from the succession through illegitimacy.

Marie (still bristling)

You have completely fisked this dishonest piece.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 September 2014 10:38
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

Hi Mac,

I did in fact post to the page of David Durose's article straight afterwards - I was that impatient with it because he's so quick to make capital out of what he sees as the ignorance of Ricardians, and it's frustrating to see just how careless he is with his own facts.

Quite apart from the fact that the roll contains information that takes us far beyond the lifetime of John, Earl of Lincoln, 'in iunie' is an impossible reading of the end of that fourth line of Edward V's entry (Jan, please correct me if any of the following is not right):-

1) There are only four minims (the upstrokes that formed i's, u's, m's and n's), whereas 'iunie' would require five;

2) 'In Iunie' wouldn't be correct for 'in June' anyway. First, the dative of 'iunius' would be 'iunio'; secondly, it was normal to include the word for month, i.e. the normal thing in Latin would be to write 'in the month of June', which comes out as 'in mensis Iunii'. I suppose you could argue that the 'mensis' could have been dropped for reasons of space, but the case ending still wouldn't be right.

I could also add that David's interpretation of the roll's failure to acknowledge Edward IV's eldest son as a king, with the red line of succession going straight to Richard, does not suggest he was being treated as already dead. That line not only bypasses Edward V and his brother but also Elizabeth of York, who was clearly very much alive throughout Richard's reign, and the reason is simply that Richard and the de la Poles held Edward IV's issue to be barred from the succession through illegitimacy.

Marie (still bristling)

It was showing up for me when I checked it this morning. It won't have appeared immediately since they moderate comments first, but you should find it now.

Hi,

It comes up for me, but with a note that it is awaiting moderation. It is much less questioning than the other comments and more simply saying he's got it wrong so he may not approve it although there is no good reason why it should not be approved. If it doesn't get approval I'll post it on here, and also wind things up on the Henry Tudor Facebook page. The honest thing now would be for David to get his article taken down - if he thinks there is still something there he can usefully say, then he can rewrite it. Let us see what happens.

Marie

Hi Mac,

I did in fact post to the page of David Durose's article straight afterwards - I was that impatient with it because he's so quick to make capital out of what he sees as the ignorance of Ricardians, and it's frustrating to see just how careless he is with his own facts.

Quite apart from the fact that the roll contains information that takes us far beyond the lifetime of John, Earl of Lincoln, 'in iunie' is an impossible reading of the end of that fourth line of Edward V's entry (Jan, please correct me if any of the following is not right):-

1) There are only four minims (the upstrokes that formed i's, u's, m's and n's), whereas 'iunie' would require five;

2) 'In Iunie' wouldn't be correct for 'in June' anyway. First, the dative of 'iunius' would be 'iunio'; secondly, it was normal to include the word for month, i.e. the normal thing in Latin would be to write 'in the month of June', which comes out as 'in mensis Iunii'. I suppose you could argue that the 'mensis' could have been dropped for reasons of space, but the case ending still wouldn't be right.

I could also add that David's interpretation of the roll's failure to acknowledge Edward IV's eldest son as a king, with the red line of succession going straight to Richard, does not suggest he was being treated as already dead. That line not only bypasses Edward V and his brother but also Elizabeth of York, who was clearly very much alive throughout Richard's reign, and the reason is simply that Richard and the de la Poles held Edward IV's issue to be barred from the succession through illegitimacy.

Marie (still bristling)

Hi Jan,

Thanks very much for the Latin. I'm sure you're right about 'mense'. I was thinking of how it appears in full dates, eg "secundo die mensis Junij", but obviously that wouldn't be correct where June is on its own. In other words, I wasn't thinking.

The only abbreviation you're likely to see of mense would be 'mese' with a bar over the 'es'. Junij unlikely to be abbreviated, but if space very tight the e could be dropped in the same way.

There's a copy of Morgan's Historical Research article in the Papers Library. Would you like to borrow it or should I just post a summary of his evidence on the forum?

Marie

Hi David,

That's fine - I guessed that maybe the moderator was having a Sunday out with the family or something of the sort.

I do agree with you regarding the words in the 'Princes' medallions. I see that someone on Facebook suggested that 'decessit' might mean something other than died in this context, but this is, I'm sure, wishful thinking as it was such a standard word for died in medieval documents that if something else had been meant another word would surely have been chosen.

My translations of the two medallions would run something like:

Edward, firstborn son of the said King Edward and Elizabeth, deceased in youth without issue.

Richard, second son of the said King Edward and Elizabeth, also deceased without issue.

So far as I can tell from the couple of images I have and the brief notes I took when I viewed the MS some years ago, there is no comment on the validity of Edward's marriage, but the thick red band marking the right line of descent is shown passing straight from Edward IV to Richard III despite the evident survival of Elizabeth of York (and both of Clarence's children, of course, though I can't recall if they are shown on the roll) and the passage of that same line of descent through other females in previous generations. This is a quotation from Morgan's article (I don't agree with all Morgan's arguments, but this summary seems fair to me):-

"The true line of royal descent is throughout shown by a thick red band and, after the death of Edward III, embraces the claims through the female line of the earls of March. Both Edmund, earl of March (d.1425) and Richard, duke of York (d.1460) are described as true heirs to England'; the accession of Edward IV, a true Brutus' is said to have restored the title and just crown. The line ends with the portrait roundel of Richard III, although the red band continues below and was presumably intended for continuation. ... No title is accorded to Edward V, who is said simply to have died without heirs in youth'  the telling difference then between a young man and a child - and Duke Richard is said likewise to have died without heirs. Of other children, only Elizabeth is noted, as also is her marriage to Henry VII..... The medallion of John, earl of Lincoln, partially overlaps the central royal trunk like the medallions of the earlier Mortimer claimants from Lionel duke of Clarence onwards."

In other words, the roll assumes that Richard III's claim to the throne was just, but does not state what it was, and from there represents the late Earl of Lincoln as Richard's chosen heir. I can't wholly prove that the author of the roll believed the Princes were alive when Richard took the throne, but there is no evidence that his claim was supposed by said author to rely on their having been dead. It is much more likely that the de la Poles continued to accept that Richard's publicly stated grounds for claiming the throne were valid, and were simply trying to persuade those who regretted the outcome of Bosworth that the surviving de la Pole brother was Richard's true heir and the man to back. Worth bearing in mind too that open reference to the precontract was illegal and very dangerous in England.

Unfortunately, the late date of the roll and the fib about Lincoln's parliamentary recognition as Richard's heir means that it can't be seen as a source of evidence for who Richard chose as his heir or Lincoln's intentions with regard to the throne in 1487, and I know that is a statement that will displease some of Ricardians. Toni Mount's comment about Lincoln's belief that the Princes were alive was, if I recall correctly (as please let me know if I'm misremembering), based on the theory that the 1487 pretender was Edward V. Personally, much though I like Toni, I think this theory is untenable, so on that we are probably agreed.

I think the frustration on the forum simply arose because some of us could have helped with the Latin (eg Jan) and palaeography (eg me) if you'd asked - it's probably the old editor in me, but I personally never submit anything for publication without getting second and third opinions first. If you don't want to give away the theory you're working on you don't need to do so. As you know, we're all very keen.

V. best wishes and I await the revised article with interest.

Marie

Hi Jan,

Thanks very much for the Latin. I'm sure you're right about 'mense'. I was thinking of how it appears in full dates, eg "secundo die mensis Junij", but obviously that wouldn't be correct where June is on its own. In other words, I wasn't thinking.

The only abbreviation you're likely to see of mense would be 'mese' with a bar over the 'es'. Junij unlikely to be abbreviated, but if space very tight the e could be dropped in the same way.

There's a copy of Morgan's Historical Research article in the Papers Library. Would you like to borrow it or should I just post a summary of his evidence on the forum?

Marie

Hi Nico.

Jan, if you don't want to spoil the surprise, look away now.

Basically, Morgan looks at two separate documents he's turned up which give a date for Edward V's death:-

1) A later addition to the Anlaby Cartulary. The cartulary itself was composed c. 1450, and included a table of years with dates of death and place of burial of ings up to that time. Some time during Henry VIII's reign this list was added to with the details of all the kings who had died since then, ending with Henry VII. What it says of Edward V (in translation from Latin) is:

"Edward V died on 22nd June, he reigned 2 months and 8 days but was not crowned. He was killed but nobody knows where he is buried."

2) A king list in the Middleton Collection (Nottingham University Library), ending with Edward V. Morgan says this is in a late 15thC hand. It says (in Latin):-

"The child Edward the Fifth reigned from the said 9th April until the following 26th June, on which day he was killed and his body was 'submersum'."

Morgan translates 'submersum' as drowned and assumes the writer meant that Edward was killed by drowning, as per the Great Chronicle which has him drowned in malmsey like Clarence, but I wonder if it simply means that he was killed and then the body hidden by submerging in water (the Thames?).

Morgan is not so much arguing that this is evidence for Edward V's actual death as evidence for the story passing amongst Buckingham's rebels, because this particular king list goes no further than EV and so would appear to have been written during Richard's reign. Morgan indicates that the king list and accompanying text is Lancastrian in sympathy. There are also 16C notes added which refer to the heirs of Walter Lewkenor (d. 1521-2) and his wife Joyce Culpeper, both of whom had close relatives who had been major players in Buckingham's Rebellion; the Lewkenors had also supported Lancaster up to 1471. Sir Thomas Lewkenor had lived in the household of Edward, Duke of Buckingham, whilst the latter was Margaret Beaufort's ward.

So, in a nutshell, what Morgan is saying is that the stories of Edward V's murder didn't originate from Henry VII's, or even Henry VIII's, government but were first spread by Lancastrian sympathisers in 1483. He notes that Vergil describes Buckingham as having a Lancastrian claim to the throne.

Marie

Oh yes – Jane Lewknor married a Pole – Sir Geoffrey?

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 29 September 2014 22:07
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

Hi Marie,

It's late at night but at a glance am I right in thinking that Sir Thomas Lewkenor was father-in-law to Constance Hussey who was sister-in-law to Reggie Bray? Fascinating. And then this leads us to the Fogges, the Knyvetts and the Poles, let alone the Northants gentry. H

Oh yes, Sir Arthur.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 30 September 2014 10:51
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

I have her as Sir Thomas's grandaughter marrying Arthur, son of Sir Richard Pole and Margaret, Clarence's daughter? So we're back to the St Johns , the Tuchets, the Danvers , the Knyvetts and all the merry men (and women). Frighteningly incestuous. H

On Monday, 29 September 2014, 22:43, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" < > wrote:

Oh yes – Jane Lewknor married a Pole – Sir Geoffrey?

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 29 September 2014 22:07
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

Hi Marie,

It's late at night but at a glance am I right in thinking that Sir Thomas Lewkenor was father-in-law to Constance Hussey who was sister-in-law to Reggie Bray? Fascinating. And then this leads us to the Fogges, the Knyvetts and the Poles, let alone the Northants gentry. H

“In June, you yourself died without children”.

John of Lincoln died at Stoke in JUNE 1487.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 30 September 2014 21:41
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Article by David Durose on Earl of Lincoln and the Princes

Jumping in without having read the thread, which may already deal with this problem. Our dear friend and forum member David Durose as usual has jumped in with both feet to discredit Richard. Unfortunately for his article, which has some facts straight but takes for granted the "usurpation," David's Latin is incorrect. "In iunie tute sine liberis decessit" does not mean "In June safely without issue deceased in childhood," as David would have it. It actually means "In June yourself died without children." Exactly how "yourself" fits in, I don't know, but the key point is, There's nothing about either "safely" or "in childhood." Ditto for the Richard Duke of York , “Etiam decessit sine liberis,” which means "also deceased without issue," not "also deceased without issue *in childhood*," as David claims.

All the reasoning based on these faulty translations is by definition faulty.

Far from proving that the "princes" were killed by Richard (or adding John, Earl of Lincoln, to the list of suspects), it merely indicates that Edward ex-V died in June of some year (clearly not 1483, when he was known to be alive) from unspecified causes, and that Richard, Duke of York (read "Perkin Warbeck") was known to be dead, which would date the roll to some time after "Warbeck's" execution in November 1499. The implication is that Warbeck was the real Richard Duke of York , who would not have claimed the throne had his brother not been dead from whatever cause. (The four children attributed to Henry VII likewise dates the roll to some time between the birth of Mary in 1496 and the death of Arthur in 1502.)

John of Lincoln himself never supported the cause of either Edward ex-V or Richard, ex-Duke of York , whose legitimacy he had denied in supporting Titulus Regius and Richard. Instead, he seems to have put forward Edward Earl of Warwick 's claim. ( Warwick 's attainder would be easy enough to undo and the child was Lincoln 's own protegee.) By that time, the Yorkist claimant was not Lincoln but his younger brother Edmund de la Pole, who waited to make his claim until after the death of "Warbeck."

Far from showing that the "Princes" were murdered, with John of Lincoln as a candidate for murderer (even though all he needed to make him the next heir was Titulus Regius), the roll states the de la Pole claim ca. 1497 when the illegitimacy of the "princes" (reversed when Henry's Parliament repealed Titulus Regius) no longer mattered.

Essentially, from the de la Pole point of view, all the Yorkist kings and princes were legitimate (Richard because of Titulus Regius, Edward V and his brother because of its reversal), but all were also dead (Richard and his nephew John in battle, Edward "V" in unknown circumstances but not necessarily in childhood, Richard of York aka Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick by execution.

So without slandering any family members, the de la Pole roll makes the case that Edmund, de la Pole is the true Yorkist heir.

Carol

Hi Nicholas,

If you're a member of the RIII Soc you can borrow it from the Barton Papers Library in a month's time when Jan has returned it. Details on inside back cover of Bulletin. Otherwise through a library, or I'm pretty sure you could pay to purchase it online (just google "Historical Research").

I'll be away for a few days now, by the by.

Marie

"It comes up for me, but with a note that it is awaiting moderation. It is much less questioning than the other comments and more simply saying he's got it wrong so he may not approve it although there is no good reason why it should not be approved. If it doesn't get approval I'll post it on here, and also wind things up on the Henry Tudor Facebook page. The honest thing now would be for David to get his article taken down - if he thinks there is still something there he can usefully say, then he can rewrite it. Let us see what happens."

Carol responds:

He's on this forum and will have read your comments (and mine, which unfortunately were posted before I read yours!). Let's hope he shows the grace and courage to retract the article.

Carol

Hi Terence,

Morgan says that's what the Great Chronicle says but I don't have a copy to hand.

Marie

Nicholas,

Just to let you know that Jan has now returned Morgan's paper (thank you, Jan). If you would like to borrow it, you'll find he details of the Papers Library on the inside back cover of the Bulletin.

Marie (who is saddened more than anything else to see that David Durose's article on the 16thC de la Pole genealogical roll is still up on the HT Soc website, completely unrevised and still erroneously described as "the Lincoln Roll")