Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her l

In everything I've ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV,
and her last marriage, to Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings,
there is a question mark over their supposed children. No proof, no further
history and so on. Yet today, on reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann
Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon
something that surely must prove the existence of at least one such child, a
daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York,
the last being Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to
her cousin', Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by
the discretion of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was
the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken
Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of
no reputation', as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the
royals. Evidently, at some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter.
The term cousin' though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage
of royals that Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the
crowned heads of Europe. Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes]
could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had
been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still
believed in him.
If this really is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies
that at least Cicely and Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children?
Unless, of course, Wroe is wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally
unrelated to Cicely.
Wiki says: Two children, Richard and
Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy, dated 1602, of the
heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge Dragon pursuivant
at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married, and had
offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were granted no
royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands, or
positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, then she is surely
verified?

I have a document JA-H copied for me ten
years ago about Cecilia.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last
husband, Thomas Kymbe?


In everything I’ve
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark
over their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet
today, on reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue
about Perkin’s wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely
must prove the existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.

Katherine Gordon took
several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of
York , the last being Christopher Ashton of
Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her ‘cousin’, Margaret Keymes, ‘such
of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion of my husband and my
said executor’. I quote Wroe: “Margaret was the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV’s
second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second
husband. This marriage ‘to an obscure man of no reputation’, as Vergil called
him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at some point,
Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term ‘cousin’ though,
suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that Richard
Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads of
Europe . Katherine’s claim to be cousin to Margaret
[Keymes] could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that
he had been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she
still believed in him.”

If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon’s will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to Cicely.

Wiki says: “Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe,
Rouge Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to substantiate.”

Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely’s daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon’s will,
then she is surely verified?

What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?

I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.

From:
[mailto: ] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?


In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.


Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York ,
the last being Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to
her cousin', Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by
the discretion of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was
the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken
Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of
no reputation', as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the
royals. Evidently, at some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter.
The term cousin' though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage
of royals that Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the
crowned heads of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret
[Keymes] could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that
he had been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she
still believed in him.

If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.

Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.

Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely verified?

Sandra wrote :"{snip] Yet today, on reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann
Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon
something that surely must prove the existence of at least one such child, a
daughter, Margaret. . . . In her will, {Katherine Gordon] left to
her cousin', Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by
the discretion of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: 'Margaret was
the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken
Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second husband . . . . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes]
could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had
been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still
believed in him.' "If this really is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies
that at least Cicely and Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? [snip] Wiki says: 'Two children, Richard and
Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy, dated 1602, of the
heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge Dragon pursuivant
at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married, and had
offspring. . . .' [snip] Carol responds:Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter, is arguing against her own case here. (Note that she ignores Cecily's first husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice of names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed that Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly befriended Cecily, but having married for her own pleasure and been banished from the court, why would Cecily choose to name her daughter for the queen mother? I like to think that she was named for Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III could the son Richard be named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin Warbeck was indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard is a Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at court, she would not have dared to use it.Carol

Stephen wrote :

I have a document JA-H copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.

Carol responds:

Stephen, my dear, don't you know it's cruel to dangle tantalizing tidbits in front of us? What is this document, and can you add it to the Files?

Carol

Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books about Cecily? They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could come up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which was mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto: ] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York ,
the last being Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to
her cousin', Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by
the discretion of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was
the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken
Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of
no reputation', as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the
royals. Evidently, at some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter.
The term cousin' though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage
of royals that Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the
crowned heads of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret
[Keymes] could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that
he had been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she
still believed in him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely verified?

Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin Warbeck story, and am
researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard.
I am thoroughly enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly 
whether you agree with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret, because Cicely and
Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely had married
Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with
him. She was certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against
Henry when the Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas
Kymbe at Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to
relent a little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope
marriage, it seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe
would surely have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?

Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books
about Cecily? They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since
the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could
come up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which
was mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while
ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.

Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36,
"'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

Hi Sandra,Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give EofY a personality. Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin Warbeck story, and am
researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard.
I am thoroughly enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly 
whether you agree with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret, because Cicely and
Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely had married
Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with
him. She was certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against
Henry when the Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas
Kymbe at Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to
relent a little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope
marriage, it seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe
would surely have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books
about Cecily? They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since
the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could
come up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which
was mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while
ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.

Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36,
"'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

I am still catching up after yesterday’s
AGM. Wroe, by the way, has a very open mind on “Perkin”. Her book reflects this
and she did so at her 2005 meeting.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 05 October 2014 20:07
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last
husband, Thomas Kymbe?


Hi
Sandra,

Sandra, I will be
looking forward to the Perkin story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at
the others. I'm quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story
line. It sounds like you may have succeeded where so many others have
failed, and managed to give EofY a personality.


Nico

On
Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[]" < >
wrote:



Hello
Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin Warbeck story, and am researching to see
when whispers about him might
first have been heard. I am thoroughly enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly
and interestingly – whether you agree with everything she says or not.

Hello
Carol. It’s curious about the name Margaret, because Cicely and Margaret
Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely had married Margaret’s
half-brother, John Welles, and seems
to have been happy with him. She was certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB
defended Cicely against Henry when the Kymbe marriage was entered into, and
sheltered Cicely and Thomas Kymbe at Collyweston. It was because of her that
Henry calmed down enough to relent a little – but not completely. He was
hopping mad. As for the Scrope marriage, it seems to slip the net a great deal.
Don’t really know why. Wroe would surely have heard about it by the time she
wrote the book in 2003?

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Sunday, October 05,
2014 6:34 PM
To:

Subject: Re:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?



Sandra,
are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books about Cecily?
They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since
the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could come
up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which was
mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while
ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.

Nico

On
Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[]" < >
wrote:



What
sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:

Sent: Sunday, October 05,
2014 4:33 PM
To:

Subject: RE:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?



I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
]
Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last
husband, Thomas Kymbe?

In
everything I’ve ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her
last marriage, to Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a
question mark over their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so
on. Yet today, on reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the
Epilogue about Perkin’s wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that
surely must prove the existence of at least one such child, a daughter,
Margaret.
Katherine
Gordon took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of
York , the last being Christopher Ashton of
Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her ‘cousin’, Margaret Keymes, ‘such
of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion of my husband and my
said executor’. I quote Wroe: “Margaret was the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV’s
second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second
husband. This marriage ‘to an obscure man of no reputation’, as Vergil called
him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at some point,
Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term ‘cousin’ though,
suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that Richard
Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads of
Europe . Katherine’s claim to be cousin to Margaret
[Keymes] could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that
he had been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she
still believed in him.”
If
this really is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon’s will, surely it verifies that at
least Cicely and Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of
course, Wroe is wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated
to Cicely.
Wiki
says: “Two children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the
enhanced copy, dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made
by Smythe, Rouge Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they
lived, married, and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last
husband were granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal
favours, lands, or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition
whatsoever. Over the centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus
the veracity of their historical existence is now difficult to substantiate.”
Wiki,
I know, but if Margaret Keymes was Cicely’s daughter and is in Katherine
Ashton/Gordon’s will, then she is surely verified?

Carol wrote:Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter, is arguing
against her own case here. (Note that she ignores Cecily's first
husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice of
names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed
that Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly
befriended Cecily, but having married for her own pleasure and been
banished from the court, why would Cecily choose to name her daughter
for the queen mother? I like to think that she was named for Cecily's
aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III could the son Richard be
named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin Warbeck was
indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his
forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard
is a Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at
court, she would not have dared to use it.Hi Carol,I was also a bit surprised that after making a case that seemed to suggest that Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans towards Perkin being an imposter. Although she doesn't believe the boatman's son story - and doesn't completely discount that he may have been Richard - she favours the illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche having been groomed to be Perkin. She only had a few pages about him in the book, but has written other articles about it and said so on the lecture circuit.When I read the book, I did think it could have been a possibility, but when I thought more about it I thought he could have been Lambert Simnel. The last record of him at Binche was in late 1485, and the Warwick claimant business started in 1486. Also, since he arrived at Binche
in 1478, the year Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of Clarence; or even possibly the real one. I'm quite impatient for JA-H's book next year to find out what he has to say.Did Margaret have two possible pretenders? Would that account for some of the rumours that the pretender was alternately the Earl of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury? If I were Margaret, as things were at the time, I would prefer Warwick and would have been very wary of Richard. Warwick would have given her and Maximilian more control; Richard would most likely have ended up a puppet of the Woodvilles. I find it interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to Portugal just before the battle of Stoke, and Margaret began showing an interest in 'Richard' just months after EW died, finally endorsing him and offering sanctuary in late 1492. In 1486, Edward and Richard Woodville, EW and the Marquis of Dorset were around to manipulate Richard;
after EW died, only the lightweight Dorset remained.Also, is there a link to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote: Hi Sandra,Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give EofY a personality. Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin Warbeck story, and am
researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard.
I am thoroughly enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly 
whether you agree with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret, because Cicely and
Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely had married
Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with
him. She was certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against
Henry when the Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas
Kymbe at Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to
relent a little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope
marriage, it seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe
would surely have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books
about Cecily? They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since
the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could
come up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which
was mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while
ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.

Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36,
"'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

I can't comment on other aspects of this, but you really do need to read Ian Arthurson's more recent work on Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai - we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from an upper-class merchant family. He was well-versed in travelling for his trade and aware of the culture of European courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that of the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it was in the interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in England at this point. I wouldn't attempt to summarise the book but unlike many on this subject it's more objective than subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor slant. H. On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
Carol wrote:Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter, is arguing
against her own case here. (Note that she ignores Cecily's first
husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice of
names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed
that Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly
befriended Cecily, but having married for her own pleasure and been
banished from the court, why would Cecily choose to name her daughter
for the queen mother? I like to think that she was named for Cecily's
aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III could the son Richard be
named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin Warbeck was
indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his
forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard
is a Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at
court, she would not have dared to use it.Hi Carol,I was also a bit surprised that after making a case that seemed to suggest that Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans towards Perkin being an imposter. Although she doesn't believe the boatman's son story - and doesn't completely discount that he may have been Richard - she favours the illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche having been groomed to be Perkin. She only had a few pages about him in the book, but has written other articles about it and said so on the lecture circuit.When I read the book, I did think it could have been a possibility, but when I thought more about it I thought he could have been Lambert Simnel. The last record of him at Binche was in late 1485, and the Warwick claimant business started in 1486. Also, since he arrived at Binche
in 1478, the year Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of Clarence; or even possibly the real one. I'm quite impatient for JA-H's book next year to find out what he has to say.Did Margaret have two possible pretenders? Would that account for some of the rumours that the pretender was alternately the Earl of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury? If I were Margaret, as things were at the time, I would prefer Warwick and would have been very wary of Richard. Warwick would have given her and Maximilian more control; Richard would most likely have ended up a puppet of the Woodvilles. I find it interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to Portugal just before the battle of Stoke, and Margaret began showing an interest in 'Richard' just months after EW died, finally endorsing him and offering sanctuary in late 1492. In 1486, Edward and Richard Woodville, EW and the Marquis of Dorset were around to manipulate Richard;
after EW died, only the lightweight Dorset remained.Also, is there a link to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote: Hi Sandra,Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give EofY a personality. Nico On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin Warbeck story, and am
researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard.
I am thoroughly enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly 
whether you agree with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret, because Cicely and
Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely had married
Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with
him. She was certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against
Henry when the Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas
Kymbe at Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to
relent a little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope
marriage, it seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe
would surely have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in your series of books
about Cecily? They popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since
the storylines in the existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could
come up with something more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which
was mostly Elizabeth of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while
ago, and thought it was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.

Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36,
"'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

Nico wrote:"Also, is there a link to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?"Carol responds:Ralph Scrope, as far as I know, was loyal to Richard. Certainly, he had no connections with the Tudor court. Henry would have wanted the marriage annulled, consummated or not, so that Cecily, the eldest of his wife's sisters and a princess of the blood (now presumed to be legitimate thanks to the reversal of Titulus Regius) married to someone Tudor considered a suitable husband, in this case, his half-uncle, Viscount Welles. Henry probably felt about the Scrope marriage the way Richard would have felt had Cecily for some reason married Reginald Bray. He would have wanted the marriage dissolved as soon as possible and the husband replaced by someone loyal to himself. At least, that's my take on the matter based on the sparse information available.Carol

Accordin to this article by Ann Wroe, the Tournai archives were destroyed during a bombing in the Second World War, any reference to "Tournai evidence" in Perkin case, both for her and Ian Arthurson, is therefore based on word of mouth only, not on a study of the original copies of the documents.Perkin Warbeck Perkin Warbeck Reprinted with kind permission by The Richard III Foundation's publication "The Medelai Gazette." This talk was taken from its study day by author An... View on medelai.wordpress.com Preview by Yahoo

I've been plodding through Arthurson as well, but find him a little dry.
and the close-packed text and l-o-n-g paragraphs are hard going. To say nothing
of no index to help the dipper/double-checker in me. I do not get on with
Kindles and so on when it comes to dipping and looking back to see exactly what
I'd read three or four chapters back. But yes, Arthurson's version of Perkin is
illuminating. Wroe, on the other hand, is (to me) eminently readable. I haven't
yet decided decided on who Perkin will ultimately be in my books, I'm at the
gathering-info stage. Whoever he was or wasn't, his story is fascinating, and
boy, did he give Henry a bad time. Still, Henry made his bed and had to lie in
it. It wasn't a comfortable mattress, and I think he spent most nights tossing
and turning for the rest of his life. Who do you think he blamed for his unhappy
existence? The House of York? Or Mummy and Nunc Jasper for putting the pressure
on him? It wouldn't be Henry's own fault, of course. Perish the thought.
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 10:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?

I can't comment on other
aspects of this, but you really do need to read Ian Arthurson's more recent work
on Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai -
we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from an upper-class
merchant family. He was well-versed in travelling for his trade and aware of the
culture of European courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that
of the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it was in the
interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in England at this point. I wouldn't
attempt to summarise the book but unlike many on this subject it's more
objective than subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor slant.
H.

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas
Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Carol wrote:
Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck
was an imposter, is arguing against her own case here. (Note that she ignores
Cecily's first husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice
of names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed that
Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly befriended Cecily,
but having married for her own pleasure and been banished from the court, why
would Cecily choose to name her daughter for the queen mother? I like to think
that she was named for Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III
could the son Richard be named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin
Warbeck was indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his
forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard is a
Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at court, she
would not have dared to use it.
Hi Carol,I was also a bit surprised that after making a case that seemed to
suggest that Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans towards Perkin
being an imposter. Although she doesn't believe the boatman's son story -
and doesn't completely discount that he may have been Richard - she favours the
illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche
having been groomed to be Perkin. She only had a few pages about him in
the book, but has written other articles about it and said so on the lecture
circuit.When I read the book, I did think it could
have been a possibility, but when I thought more about it I thought he could
have been Lambert Simnel. The last record of him at Binche was in late
1485, and the Warwick claimant business started in 1486. Also, since he
arrived at Binche in 1478, the year Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of
Clarence; or even possibly the real one. I'm quite impatient for JA-H's
book next year to find out what he has to say.Did
Margaret have two possible pretenders? Would that account for some of the
rumours that the pretender was alternately the Earl of Warwick and Richard of
Shrewsbury? If I were Margaret, as things were at the time, I would prefer
Warwick and would have been very wary of Richard. Warwick would have given
her and Maximilian more control; Richard would most likely have ended up a
puppet of the Woodvilles. I find it interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to
Portugal just before the battle of Stoke, and Margaret began showing an interest
in 'Richard' just months after EW died, finally endorsing him and offering
sanctuary in late 1492. In 1486, Edward and Richard Woodville, EW and the
Marquis of Dorset were around to manipulate Richard; after EW died, only the
lightweight Dorset remained.Also, is there a link
to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I
think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another
reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06, Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Sandra,

Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin
story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm
quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like
you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give
EofY a personality.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin
Warbeck story, and am researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard. I am thoroughly
enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly  whether you agree
with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret,
because Cicely and Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely
had married Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with him. She was
certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against Henry when the
Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas Kymbe at
Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to relent a
little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope marriage, it
seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe would surely
have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
Sandra, are you
planning a 4th installment in your series of books about Cecily? They
popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a Cecily-Perkin-Katherine
Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since the storylines in the
existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could come up with something
more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which was mostly Elizabeth
of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while ago, and thought it
was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

Carol responds:Ralph Scrope, as far as
I know, was loyal to Richard. Certainly, he had no connections with the
Tudor court. Henry would have wanted the marriage annulled, consummated
or not, so that Cecily, the eldest of his wife's sisters and a princess
of the blood (now presumed to be legitimate thanks to the reversal of
Titulus Regius) married to someone Tudor considered a suitable husband,
in this case, his half-uncle, Viscount Welles. Henry probably felt about
the Scrope marriage the way Richard would have felt had Cecily for some
reason married Reginald Bray. He would have wanted the marriage
dissolved as soon as possible and the husband replaced by someone loyal
to himself. At least, that's my take on the matter based on the sparse
information available.CarolThanks Carol, I thought it would be something like that. It also seems that HT wanted Perkin and Lady Catherine's marriage annulled, but she didn't consent.Nico On Monday, 6 October 2014, 7:58, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I've been plodding through Arthurson as well, but find him a little dry.
and the close-packed text and l-o-n-g paragraphs are hard going. To say nothing
of no index to help the dipper/double-checker in me. I do not get on with
Kindles and so on when it comes to dipping and looking back to see exactly what
I'd read three or four chapters back. But yes, Arthurson's version of Perkin is
illuminating. Wroe, on the other hand, is (to me) eminently readable. I haven't
yet decided decided on who Perkin will ultimately be in my books, I'm at the
gathering-info stage. Whoever he was or wasn't, his story is fascinating, and
boy, did he give Henry a bad time. Still, Henry made his bed and had to lie in
it. It wasn't a comfortable mattress, and I think he spent most nights tossing
and turning for the rest of his life. Who do you think he blamed for his unhappy
existence? The House of York? Or Mummy and Nunc Jasper for putting the pressure
on him? It wouldn't be Henry's own fault, of course. Perish the thought.
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 10:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I can't comment on other
aspects of this, but you really do need to read Ian Arthurson's more recent work
on Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai -
we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from an upper-class
merchant family. He was well-versed in travelling for his trade and aware of the
culture of European courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that
of the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it was in the
interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in England at this point. I wouldn't
attempt to summarise the book but unlike many on this subject it's more
objective than subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor slant.
H.

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas
Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Carol wrote:
Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck
was an imposter, is arguing against her own case here. (Note that she ignores
Cecily's first husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice
of names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed that
Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly befriended Cecily,
but having married for her own pleasure and been banished from the court, why
would Cecily choose to name her daughter for the queen mother? I like to think
that she was named for Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III
could the son Richard be named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin
Warbeck was indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his
forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard is a
Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at court, she
would not have dared to use it.
Hi Carol,I was also a bit surprised that after making a case that seemed to
suggest that Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans towards Perkin
being an imposter. Although she doesn't believe the boatman's son story -
and doesn't completely discount that he may have been Richard - she favours the
illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche
having been groomed to be Perkin. She only had a few pages about him in
the book, but has written other articles about it and said so on the lecture
circuit.When I read the book, I did think it could
have been a possibility, but when I thought more about it I thought he could
have been Lambert Simnel. The last record of him at Binche was in late
1485, and the Warwick claimant business started in 1486. Also, since he
arrived at Binche in 1478, the year Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of
Clarence; or even possibly the real one. I'm quite impatient for JA-H's
book next year to find out what he has to say.Did
Margaret have two possible pretenders? Would that account for some of the
rumours that the pretender was alternately the Earl of Warwick and Richard of
Shrewsbury? If I were Margaret, as things were at the time, I would prefer
Warwick and would have been very wary of Richard. Warwick would have given
her and Maximilian more control; Richard would most likely have ended up a
puppet of the Woodvilles. I find it interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to
Portugal just before the battle of Stoke, and Margaret began showing an interest
in 'Richard' just months after EW died, finally endorsing him and offering
sanctuary in late 1492. In 1486, Edward and Richard Woodville, EW and the
Marquis of Dorset were around to manipulate Richard; after EW died, only the
lightweight Dorset remained.Also, is there a link
to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I
think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another
reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06, Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Sandra,

Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin
story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm
quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like
you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give
EofY a personality.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin
Warbeck story, and am researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard. I am thoroughly
enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly  whether you agree
with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret,
because Cicely and Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely
had married Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with him. She was
certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against Henry when the
Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas Kymbe at
Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to relent a
little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope marriage, it
seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe would surely
have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
Sandra, are you
planning a 4th installment in your series of books about Cecily? They
popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a Cecily-Perkin-Katherine
Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since the storylines in the
existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could come up with something
more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which was mostly Elizabeth
of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while ago, and thought it
was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

Hilary wrote:I can't comment on other aspects of this, but you really do need to read
Ian Arthurson's more recent work on Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck's life is
well-documented in the records of Tournai - we have his birth, his
parents and the fact that he came from an upper-class merchant family.
He was well-versed in travelling for his trade and aware of the culture
of European courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that
of the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it was in
the interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in England at this
point. I wouldn't attempt to summarise the book but unlike many on this
subject it's more objective than subjective; the author has neither a
Ricardian nor Tudor slant. H.Ian Arthurson's book is indeed excellent - not an easy read, but superbly well researched, and I do agree essentially neutral. It seems that both books were published about the same time in 2003, so he didn't have access to Ann Wroe's research when writing it, although he was dismissive of Diana Kleyn in a way that reminded me of Michael Hicks on Ricardians. I felt that his unquestioning acceptance of the veracity of Warbeck's confession to be a slight weakness, but with that particular book it
didn't matter so much, because the focus was on the foreign policy relationships.The Tournai records (sadly no longer available) do mention the Werbeques, however they do not record specifically anything that confirms that that Perkin was in fact their son. A son called Pierrechon is mentioned in a document from the late 1490s, but Wroe points out that this Pierrechon appears to be a child.Of course, I don't know who Perkin Warbeck was. There are other theories, and I wouldn't rule out the illegitimate child one. I know you get unrelated people who look alike, but the chance of the Werbeque's having a son with such a combination of Plantagenet and what seem to be Neville features who could be trained to impersonate an English prince so convincingly is a long shot for me. Even Arthurson mentioned that people commented on how much Perkin and Margaret resembled each other. Recently, I found copy of the Rev. Dening book in the library, and he claims that Richard III's ghost told him that Perkin was in fact the son of the Richard's brothers, but didn't say with one. (That book was fascinating, but I didn't know
what to make of it - the medium seemed insightful about some things and way off on others.)Nico On Monday, 6 October 2014, 12:07, Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...> wrote: Carol responds:Ralph Scrope, as far as
I know, was loyal to Richard. Certainly, he had no connections with the
Tudor court. Henry would have wanted the marriage annulled, consummated
or not, so that Cecily, the eldest of his wife's sisters and a princess
of the blood (now presumed to be legitimate thanks to the reversal of
Titulus Regius) married to someone Tudor considered a suitable husband,
in this case, his half-uncle, Viscount Welles. Henry probably felt about
the Scrope marriage the way Richard would have felt had Cecily for some
reason married Reginald Bray. He would have wanted the marriage
dissolved as soon as possible and the husband replaced by someone loyal
to himself. At least, that's my take on the matter based on the sparse
information available.CarolThanks Carol, I thought it would be something like that. It also seems that HT wanted Perkin and Lady Catherine's marriage annulled, but she didn't consent.Nico On Monday, 6 October 2014, 7:58, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I've been plodding through Arthurson as well, but find him a little dry.
and the close-packed text and l-o-n-g paragraphs are hard going. To say nothing
of no index to help the dipper/double-checker in me. I do not get on with
Kindles and so on when it comes to dipping and looking back to see exactly what
I'd read three or four chapters back. But yes, Arthurson's version of Perkin is
illuminating. Wroe, on the other hand, is (to me) eminently readable. I haven't
yet decided decided on who Perkin will ultimately be in my books, I'm at the
gathering-info stage. Whoever he was or wasn't, his story is fascinating, and
boy, did he give Henry a bad time. Still, Henry made his bed and had to lie in
it. It wasn't a comfortable mattress, and I think he spent most nights tossing
and turning for the rest of his life. Who do you think he blamed for his unhappy
existence? The House of York? Or Mummy and Nunc Jasper for putting the pressure
on him? It wouldn't be Henry's own fault, of course. Perish the thought.
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 10:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
I can't comment on other
aspects of this, but you really do need to read Ian Arthurson's more recent work
on Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai -
we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from an upper-class
merchant family. He was well-versed in travelling for his trade and aware of the
culture of European courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that
of the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it was in the
interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in England at this point. I wouldn't
attempt to summarise the book but unlike many on this subject it's more
objective than subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor slant.
H.

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas
Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Carol wrote:
Wroe, who believes that Perkin Warbeck
was an imposter, is arguing against her own case here. (Note that she ignores
Cecily's first husband, Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by Richard III.) Her choice
of names for her children is interesting. Tudor historians have assumed that
Margaret was named for Margaret Beaufort, who had supposedly befriended Cecily,
but having married for her own pleasure and been banished from the court, why
would Cecily choose to name her daughter for the queen mother? I like to think
that she was named for Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And who but Richard III
could the son Richard be named for? Unless it's her way of signaling that Perkin
Warbeck was indeed her younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury (restored to his
forfeited dukedom by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At any rate, Richard is a
Yorkist name with no connection to the Tudors. Had she remained at court, she
would not have dared to use it.
Hi Carol,I was also a bit surprised that after making a case that seemed to
suggest that Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans towards Perkin
being an imposter. Although she doesn't believe the boatman's son story -
and doesn't completely discount that he may have been Richard - she favours the
illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche
having been groomed to be Perkin. She only had a few pages about him in
the book, but has written other articles about it and said so on the lecture
circuit.When I read the book, I did think it could
have been a possibility, but when I thought more about it I thought he could
have been Lambert Simnel. The last record of him at Binche was in late
1485, and the Warwick claimant business started in 1486. Also, since he
arrived at Binche in 1478, the year Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of
Clarence; or even possibly the real one. I'm quite impatient for JA-H's
book next year to find out what he has to say.Did
Margaret have two possible pretenders? Would that account for some of the
rumours that the pretender was alternately the Earl of Warwick and Richard of
Shrewsbury? If I were Margaret, as things were at the time, I would prefer
Warwick and would have been very wary of Richard. Warwick would have given
her and Maximilian more control; Richard would most likely have ended up a
puppet of the Woodvilles. I find it interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to
Portugal just before the battle of Stoke, and Margaret began showing an interest
in 'Richard' just months after EW died, finally endorsing him and offering
sanctuary in late 1492. In 1486, Edward and Richard Woodville, EW and the
Marquis of Dorset were around to manipulate Richard; after EW died, only the
lightweight Dorset remained.Also, is there a link
to the Scrope marriage in the Perkin story? When HT had it annulled, I
think I read it was for non-consummation, but could there have been another
reason that he didn't want Cecily married to Scrope?Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06, Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Sandra,

Sandra, I will be looking forward to the Perkin
story. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the others. I'm
quite intrigued by the Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily story line. It sounds like
you may have succeeded where so many others have failed, and managed to give
EofY a personality.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 19:32, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
Hello Nico. Yes, I have plans for the Perkin
Warbeck story, and am researching to see when whispers about him might first have been heard. I am thoroughly
enjoying Ann Wroe. She writes so fluidly and interestingly  whether you agree
with everything she says or not.
Hello Carol. It's curious about the name Margaret,
because Cicely and Margaret Beaufort were very close. Possibly because Cicely
had married Margaret's half-brother, John Welles, and seems to have been happy with him. She was
certainly grief-stricken when he died. MB defended Cicely against Henry when the
Kymbe marriage was entered into, and sheltered Cicely and Thomas Kymbe at
Collyweston. It was because of her that Henry calmed down enough to relent a
little  but not completely. He was hopping mad. As for the Scrope marriage, it
seems to slip the net a great deal. Don't really know why. Wroe would surely
have heard about it by the time she wrote the book in 2003?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
Sandra, are you
planning a 4th installment in your series of books about Cecily? They
popped up on Amazon yesterday, and I thought that a Cecily-Perkin-Katherine
Gordon storyline would be a good addition. Since the storylines in the
existing books sound quite original, I'll bet you could come up with something
more imaginative than the one Phillipa Gregory did, which was mostly Elizabeth
of York whining. I read Ann Wroe's book a while ago, and thought it
was fantastic. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet.


Nico

On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 16:36, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []"
<> wrote:
What sort of document, Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday,
October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE:
Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely
Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
I have a document JA-H
copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
] Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39To:
Subject: Proof
of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
In everything I've
ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to
Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe, various spellings, there is a question mark over
their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on
reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's
wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something that surely must prove the
existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.
Katherine Gordon
took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of York , the last being
Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin',
Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion
of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret was the daughter of
Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or
Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation',
as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently, at
some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin'
though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that
Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads
of Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only
come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he
said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in
him.
If this really is in
Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and
Thomas had this one daughter, if no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is
wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki says: Two
children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy,
dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge
Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married,
and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were
granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal favours, lands,
or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the
centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their
historical existence is now difficult to
substantiate.
Wiki, I know, but if
Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will,
then she is surely
verified?

Well that is an amazing and interesting find, and certainly sounds plausible!

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 5, 2014, at 5:34 PM, 'Stephen'
stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


I have a document JA-H copied for me ten years ago about Cecilia.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 05 October 2014 15:39
To:
Subject: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?



In everything I've ever read about Cicely/Cecily, daughter of Edward lV, and her last marriage, to Thomas Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe,
various spellings, there is a question mark over their supposed children. No proof, no further history and so on. Yet today, on reading Perkin, A Story of Deception by Ann Wroe, in the Epilogue about Perkin's wife, Lady Katherine Gordon, I came upon something
that surely must prove the existence of at least one such child, a daughter, Margaret.


Katherine Gordon took several husbands after Perkin /Richard Duke of
York , the last being Christopher Ashton of Fyfield, Berks. In her will, she left to her cousin', Margaret Keymes, such of my apparel as shall be meet for her by the discretion of my husband and my said executor'. I quote Wroe: Margaret
was the daughter of Cicely, Edward IV's second surviving daughter, who had taken Thomas Keymes or Kyme as her second husband. This marriage to an obscure man of no reputation', as Vergil called him, had made Cicely at outcast among the royals. Evidently,
at some point, Katherine had befriended her and her daughter. The term cousin' though, suggested either a blood tie or that general cousinage of royals that Richard Plantagenet (Perkin) had claimed, in 1493, with half the crowned heads of
Europe . Katherine's claim to be cousin to Margaret [Keymes] could have only come through her first husband (Perkin), assuming that he had been the prince he said he was. It was perhaps a tiny signal that she still believed in him.

If this really is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, surely it verifies that at least Cicely and Thomas had this one daughter, if
no more children? Unless, of course, Wroe is wrong, and there was another Margaret Keymes, totally unrelated to Cicely.

Wiki says: Two children, Richard and Margaret (or Margery) are mentioned in the enhanced copy, dated 1602, of the heraldic Visitation
of Hampshire (1576) made by Smythe, Rouge Dragon pursuivant at the College of Arms, indicating that they lived, married, and had offspring. The children of the princess and her last husband were granted no royal titles or styles, nor did they enjoy any royal
favours, lands, or positions at court, nor, indeed, any public recognition whatsoever. Over the centuries any memory of them has been obscured, and thus the veracity of their historical existence is now difficult to substantiate.

Wiki, I know, but if Margaret Keymes was Cicely's daughter and is in Katherine Ashton/Gordon's will, then she is surely verified?

Mac other people on the Continent did look at and record the archives before they were destroyed. I'm not going to list them - you'll have to read Arthurson's book which does list them and goes into great detail, including family wills. One of the problems with Ricardian study is that it is so introspective; it fails to look at the driving forces in Europe which encouraged insurrection in England long after Richard's death and sometimes, though not always, ignores European historians. H

On the contrary, I think the only hope for Ricardians lies primarily in the European archives, as demonstrated by the discovery of Mancini's report, the Portoguese negotiations,etc. As for Arthurson's book, I did not say he did not list his sources properly, I only said he was unable to carry out a personal analysis of the original documents, something that is always useful as demonstrated by one of the latests discussion on the Lincoln Roll and the corresponding article written by a retired IT consultant with no competence in paleography and Latin who was speculating on a hand written parchment he viewed on a pc screen... I am not saying Arthurson's sources were that incompetent, I am only saying no contemporary peer analysis of their study and related conclusions was possible because the original documents were destroyed. Mac

http://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/the-lincoln-roll-and-the-desperate-sandbagging-of-the-cairo-residents/

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 06 October 2014 16:33
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last
husband, Thomas Kymbe?


On the
contrary, I think the only hope for Ricardians lies primarily in the European
archives, as demonstrated by the discovery of Mancini's report, the Portoguese
negotiations,etc.

As for
Arthurson's book, I did not say he did not list his sources properly, I only
said he was unable to carry out a personal analysis of the original documents,
something that is always useful as demonstrated by one of the latests
discussion on the Lincoln Roll and the corresponding article written by a
retired IT consultant with no competence in paleography and Latin who was
speculating on a hand written parchment he viewed on a pc screen...

I am not
saying Arthurson's sources were that incompetent, I am only saying no
contemporary peer analysis of their study and related conclusions was possible
because the original documents were destroyed. Mac

Does Arthurson explain the extraordinary likeness Perking bore to
Edward IV?
Paul

On 05/10/2014 22:22, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I can't
comment on other aspects of this, but you really do need to
read Ian Arthurson's more recent work on Perkin Warbeck.
Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai -
we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from
an upper-class merchant family. He was well-versed in
travelling for his trade and aware of the culture of European
courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that of
the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it
was in the interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in
England at this point. I wouldn't attempt to summarise the
book but unlike many on this subject it's more objective than
subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor
slant. H.


On Sunday, 5
October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas Brown
nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:


 
Carol wrote:
Wroe,
who believes that Perkin Warbeck was
an imposter, is arguing against her
own case here. (Note that she
ignores Cecily's first husband,
Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by
Richard III.) Her choice of names
for her children is interesting.
Tudor historians have assumed that
Margaret was named for Margaret
Beaufort, who had supposedly
befriended Cecily, but having
married for her own pleasure and
been banished from the court, why
would Cecily choose to name her
daughter for the queen mother? I
like to think that she was named for
Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And
who but Richard III could the son
Richard be named for? Unless it's
her way of signaling that Perkin
Warbeck was indeed her younger
brother, Richard of Shrewsbury
(restored to his forfeited dukedom
by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At
any rate, Richard is a Yorkist name
with no connection to the Tudors.
Had she remained at court, she would
not have dared to use it.

Hi Carol,

I was also a bit surprised that after making
a case that seemed to suggest that Perkin
was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans
towards Perkin being an imposter.  Although
she doesn't believe the boatman's son story
- and doesn't completely discount that he
may have been Richard - she favours the
illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le
Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche
having been groomed to be Perkin.  She only
had a few pages about him in the book, but
has written other articles about it and said
so on the lecture circuit.

When I read the book, I did think it could
have been a possibility, but when I thought
more about it I thought he could have been
Lambert Simnel.  The last record of him at
Binche was in late 1485, and the Warwick
claimant business started in 1486.  Also,
since he arrived at Binche in 1478, the year
Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of
Clarence; or even possibly the real one. 
I'm quite impatient for JA-H's book next
year to find out what he has to say.

Did Margaret have two possible pretenders? 
Would that account for some of the rumours
that the pretender was alternately the Earl
of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury?  If I
were Margaret, as things were at the time, I
would prefer Warwick and would have been
very wary of Richard.  Warwick would have
given her and Maximilian more control;
Richard would most likely have ended up a
puppet of the Woodvilles.  I find it
interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to
Portugal just before the battle of Stoke,
and Margaret began showing an interest in
'Richard' just months after EW died, finally
endorsing him and offering sanctuary in late
1492.  In 1486, Edward and Richard
Woodville, EW and the Marquis of Dorset were
around to manipulate Richard; after EW died,
only the lightweight Dorset remained.

Also, is there a link to the Scrope marriage
in the Perkin story?  When HT had it
annulled, I think I read it was for
non-consummation, but could there have been
another reason that he didn't want Cecily
married to Scrope?


Nico




On
Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06,
Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...>
wrote:


Hi Sandra,

Sandra, I will be looking forward to the
Perkin story.  In the
meantime, I'll have a
look at the others.  
I'm quite intrigued by
the
Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily
story line.  It sounds
like you may have
succeeded where so many
others have failed, and
managed to give EofY a
personality.


Nico


On
Sunday, 5
October 2014,
19:32,
"'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]"
<>
wrote:


 
Hello
Nico. Yes, I
have plans for
the Perkin
Warbeck story,
and am
researching to
see when
whispers about
him might
first have
been heard. I
am thoroughly
enjoying Ann
Wroe. She
writes so
fluidly and
interestingly
 whether you
agree with
everything she
says  or not.
 
Hello
Carol. It's
curious about
the name
Margaret,
because Cicely
and Margaret
Beaufort were
very close.
Possibly
because Cicely
had married
Margaret's
half-brother,
John Welles,
and seems
to have been
happy with
him. She was
certainly
grief-stricken
when he died.
MB defended
Cicely against
Henry when the
Kymbe marriage
was entered
into, and
sheltered
Cicely and
Thomas Kymbe
at
Collyweston.
It was because
of her that
Henry calmed
down enough to
relent a
little  but
not
completely. He
was hopping
mad. As for
the Scrope
marriage, it
seems to slip
the net a
great deal.
Don't really
know why. Wroe
would surely
have heard
about it by
the time she
wrote the book
in 2003?
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re:
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
 
Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in
your series of
books about
Cecily?  They
popped up on
Amazon
yesterday, and
I thought that
a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine
Gordon
storyline
would be a
good
addition. 
Since the
storylines in
the existing
books sound
quite
original, I'll
bet you could
come up with
something more
imaginative
than the one
Phillipa
Gregory did,
which was
mostly
Elizabeth of
York
whining.   I
read Ann
Wroe's book a
while ago, and
thought it was
fantastic. 
I'd recommend
it to anyone
who hasn't
read it yet. 


Nico


On
Sunday, 5
October 2014,
16:36,
"'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]"
<>
wrote:


 
What
sort of
document,
Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE:
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
 
I
have a
document JA-H
copied for me
ten years ago
about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
]
Sent:
05 October
2014 15:39
To:

Subject:
[Richard III
Society Forum]
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
In
everything
I've ever read
about
Cicely/Cecily,
daughter of
Edward lV, and
her last
marriage, to
Thomas
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Paul..it fills me with horror to think about Perkin being Richard. Absolute horror. Perkin suffered torture and his face battered to make him unrecognisable. Why? He was forced to grovel in front of his wife and *confess* he has lied about his identify. Then he was dragged on a hurdle to his execution....If he was indeed the son of Edward and EW aftempting to regain the throne from Tudor its just too diabolical for words and what must have run through his head...well it doesn't bear thinking about. How annoying and frustrating we will, probably, never get to the bottom of this mystery...

Yes Paul exactly, and why would Margaret of Burgundy want to put a boatman from Tournai on the English throne. I could understand other European Monarchs wanting to cause trouble but not Margaret.Mary

I think Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the real thing. This doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin. H

I am not sure Margaret should be described as a sad lonely woman. She had an excellent relationship with her step-daughter, Mary who named her own daughter after her step-mother. After Mary's death, Margaret was closely involved in the lives of Mary's children.
Hiliary wrote:







I think Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the real thing.

This doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin. H

See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable. H

Paul,I would add my recommendation to Hilary's regarding the Arthurson book and I thank her for pointing it out.Regarding the loss of much of Tournai's records in the war, they had been explored previously. Roth's article on the subject dates from the 1920s. I think that the physical resemblance is something we will never be able to evaluate, but I think that it is the least difficult to explain. If you want to set up a 'pretender' to embarrass a foreign power, you would choose one that was convincing. Warbeck had the right bearing because he came from one of the most prominent families of the area and was not a peasant as is often stated.I would also point out that whatever Lincoln's Roll may not say about the date of Edward V's death, the details present for Richard do not tally with those of Warbeck.Kind regardsDavid Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From:
Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
Sent:
Mon, Oct 6, 2014 6:25:21 PM

 

Does Arthurson explain the extraordinary likeness Perking bore to
Edward IV?
Paul

On 05/10/2014 22:22, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I can't
comment on other aspects of this, but you really do need to
read Ian Arthurson's more recent work on Perkin Warbeck.
Warbeck's life is well-documented in the records of Tournai -
we have his birth, his parents and the fact that he came from
an upper-class merchant family. He was well-versed in
travelling for his trade and aware of the culture of European
courts. In fact his life is far better documented than that of
the prince he impersonated. Arthurson also points out how it
was in the interest of other monarchs to cause trouble in
England at this point. I wouldn't attempt to summarise the
book but unlike many on this subject it's more objective than
subjective; the author has neither a Ricardian nor Tudor
slant. H.


On Sunday, 5
October 2014, 20:38, "Nicholas Brown
nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:


 
Carol wrote:
Wroe,
who believes that Perkin Warbeck was
an imposter, is arguing against her
own case here. (Note that she
ignores Cecily's first husband,
Ralph Scrope, chosen for her by
Richard III.) Her choice of names
for her children is interesting.
Tudor historians have assumed that
Margaret was named for Margaret
Beaufort, who had supposedly
befriended Cecily, but having
married for her own pleasure and
been banished from the court, why
would Cecily choose to name her
daughter for the queen mother? I
like to think that she was named for
Cecily's aunt, Margaret of York. And
who but Richard III could the son
Richard be named for? Unless it's
her way of signaling that Perkin
Warbeck was indeed her younger
brother, Richard of Shrewsbury
(restored to his forfeited dukedom
by the repeal of Titulus Regius). At
any rate, Richard is a Yorkist name
with no connection to the Tudors.
Had she remained at court, she would
not have dared to use it.

Hi Carol,

I was also a bit surprised that after making
a case that seemed to suggest that Perkin
was Richard of Shrewsbury, Ann Wroe leans
towards Perkin being an imposter.  Although
she doesn't believe the boatman's son story
- and doesn't completely discount that he
may have been Richard - she favours the
illegitimate child theory, with Jehan le
Sage, the boy Margaret raised at Binche
having been groomed to be Perkin.  She only
had a few pages about him in the book, but
has written other articles about it and said
so on the lecture circuit.

When I read the book, I did think it could
have been a possibility, but when I thought
more about it I thought he could have been
Lambert Simnel.  The last record of him at
Binche was in late 1485, and the Warwick
claimant business started in 1486.  Also,
since he arrived at Binche in 1478, the year
Clarence died, was he an illegitimate son of
Clarence; or even possibly the real one. 
I'm quite impatient for JA-H's book next
year to find out what he has to say.

Did Margaret have two possible pretenders? 
Would that account for some of the rumours
that the pretender was alternately the Earl
of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury?  If I
were Margaret, as things were at the time, I
would prefer Warwick and would have been
very wary of Richard.  Warwick would have
given her and Maximilian more control;
Richard would most likely have ended up a
puppet of the Woodvilles.  I find it
interesting that 'Perkin' was sent to
Portugal just before the battle of Stoke,
and Margaret began showing an interest in
'Richard' just months after EW died, finally
endorsing him and offering sanctuary in late
1492.  In 1486, Edward and Richard
Woodville, EW and the Marquis of Dorset were
around to manipulate Richard; after EW died,
only the lightweight Dorset remained.

Also, is there a link to the Scrope marriage
in the Perkin story?  When HT had it
annulled, I think I read it was for
non-consummation, but could there have been
another reason that he didn't want Cecily
married to Scrope?


Nico




On
Sunday, 5 October 2014, 20:06,
Nicholas Brown
<nico11238@...>
wrote:


Hi Sandra,

Sandra, I will be looking forward to the
Perkin story.  In the
meantime, I'll have a
look at the others.  
I'm quite intrigued by
the
Henry-Elizabeth-Cecily
story line.  It sounds
like you may have
succeeded where so many
others have failed, and
managed to give EofY a
personality.


Nico


On
Sunday, 5
October 2014,
19:32,
"'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]"
<>
wrote:


 
Hello
Nico. Yes, I
have plans for
the Perkin
Warbeck story,
and am
researching to
see when
whispers about
him might
first have
been heard. I
am thoroughly
enjoying Ann
Wroe. She
writes so
fluidly and
interestingly
 whether you
agree with
everything she
says  or not.
 
Hello
Carol. It's
curious about
the name
Margaret,
because Cicely
and Margaret
Beaufort were
very close.
Possibly
because Cicely
had married
Margaret's
half-brother,
John Welles,
and seems
to have been
happy with
him. She was
certainly
grief-stricken
when he died.
MB defended
Cicely against
Henry when the
Kymbe marriage
was entered
into, and
sheltered
Cicely and
Thomas Kymbe
at
Collyweston.
It was because
of her that
Henry calmed
down enough to
relent a
little  but
not
completely. He
was hopping
mad. As for
the Scrope
marriage, it
seems to slip
the net a
great deal.
Don't really
know why. Wroe
would surely
have heard
about it by
the time she
wrote the book
in 2003?
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re:
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
 
Sandra, are you planning a 4th installment in
your series of
books about
Cecily?  They
popped up on
Amazon
yesterday, and
I thought that
a
Cecily-Perkin-Katherine
Gordon
storyline
would be a
good
addition. 
Since the
storylines in
the existing
books sound
quite
original, I'll
bet you could
come up with
something more
imaginative
than the one
Phillipa
Gregory did,
which was
mostly
Elizabeth of
York
whining.   I
read Ann
Wroe's book a
while ago, and
thought it was
fantastic. 
I'd recommend
it to anyone
who hasn't
read it yet. 


Nico


On
Sunday, 5
October 2014,
16:36,
"'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]"
<>
wrote:


 
What
sort of
document,
Stephen?
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
Subject: RE:
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
 
I
have a
document JA-H
copied for me
ten years ago
about Cecilia.
From:
[mailto:
]
Sent:
05 October
2014 15:39
To:

Subject:
[Richard III
Society Forum]
Proof of the
existence of a
daughter to
Cicely
Plantagenet
and her last
husband,
Thomas Kymbe?
 
In
everything
I've ever read
about
Cicely/Cecily,
daughter of
Edward lV, and
her last
marriage, to
Thomas
Kymbe/Keymes/Kyme/Kymbe,
various
spellings,
there is a
question mark
over their
supposed
children. No
proof, no
further
history and so
on. Yet today,
on reading
Perkin, A
Story of
Deception by
Ann Wroe, in
the Epilogue
about Perkin's
wife, Lady
Katherine
Gordon, I came
upon something
that surely
must prove the
existence of
at least one
such child, a
daughter,
Margaret.
Katherine
Gordon took
several
husbands after
Perkin
/Richard Duke
of York , the
last being
Christopher
Ashton of
Fyfield,
Berks. In her
will, she left
to her
cousin',
Margaret
Keymes, such
of my apparel
as shall be
meet for her
by the
discretion of
my husband and
my said
executor'. I
quote Wroe:
Margaret was
the daughter
of Cicely,
Edward IV's
second
surviving
daughter, who
had taken
Thomas Keymes
or Kyme as her
second
husband. This
marriage to
an obscure man
of no
reputation',
as Vergil
called him,
had made
Cicely at
outcast among
the royals.
Evidently, at
some point,
Katherine had
befriended her
and her
daughter. The
term cousin'
though,
suggested
either a blood
tie or that
general
cousinage of
royals that
Richard
Plantagenet
(Perkin) had
claimed, in
1493, with
half the
crowned heads
of Europe .
Katherine's
claim to be
cousin to
Margaret
[Keymes] could
have only come
through her
first husband
(Perkin),
assuming that
he had been
the prince he
said he was.
It was perhaps
a tiny signal
that she still
believed in
him.
If
this really is
in Katherine
Ashton/Gordon's
will, surely
it verifies
that at least
Cicely and
Thomas had
this one
daughter, if
no more
children?
Unless, of
course, Wroe
is wrong, and
there was
another
Margaret
Keymes,
totally
unrelated to
Cicely.
Wiki
says: Two
children,
Richard and
Margaret (or
Margery) are
mentioned in
the enhanced
copy, dated
1602, of the
heraldic
Visitation of
Hampshire
(1576) made by
Smythe, Rouge
Dragon
pursuivant at
the College of
Arms,
indicating
that they
lived,
married, and
had offspring.
The children
of the
princess and
her last
husband were
granted no
royal titles
or styles, nor
did they enjoy
any royal
favours,
lands, or
positions at
court, nor,
indeed, any
public
recognition
whatsoever.
Over the
centuries any
memory of them
has been
obscured, and
thus the
veracity of
their
historical
existence is
now difficult
to
substantiate.
Wiki,
I know, but if
Margaret
Keymes was
Cicely's
daughter and
is in
Katherine
Ashton/Gordon's
will, then she
is surely
verified?
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Hilary wrote:I
think Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was
a justifiably sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a
boatman, (that's Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was
well-educated and well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass
him off as the real thing. This doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin. HI can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but Arthurson gave the jist of it. I think the idea that Margaret was sad and lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children? It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may have been disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval women.Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have no reason to assume that she would be would be so gullible and easily exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt shortchanged by life?IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by historians. Some (especially Tudor) presume her to be mentally unbalanced and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true that she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones - after all with HT's fragile Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a real member of the House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion that all women are at the mercy of their reproductive system.Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely that must be confirmation that the Princes were dead. If they were alive, it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads of Europe, so you couldn't easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?Nico On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable. H

Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck was small - she goes to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore not at all ressemble Edward.Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her family. But she saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every older man a chauvinist just because they point that out. H On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 13:39, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
Hilary wrote:I
think Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was
a justifiably sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a
boatman, (that's Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was
well-educated and well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass
him off as the real thing. This doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin. HI can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but Arthurson gave the jist of it. I think the idea that Margaret was sad and lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children? It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may have been disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval women.Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have no reason to assume that she would be would be so gullible and easily exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt shortchanged by life?IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by historians. Some (especially Tudor) presume her to be mentally unbalanced and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true that she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones - after all with HT's fragile Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a real member of the House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion that all women are at the mercy of their reproductive system.Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely that must be confirmation that the Princes were dead. If they were alive, it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads of Europe, so you couldn't easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?Nico On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable. H

But Hilary, the fact is that men almost always point superior fingers at
important women and categorise them by their sex, looks and age, not their
characters and abilities. Women were inferior creatures, and had no business
wielding power or scheming against men. If they did that, they were hysterical,
vengeful witches. If a bloke did it, he was justified and an adornment to his
sex. Something like that, anyway. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?

Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck
was small - she goes to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore
not at all ressemble Edward.
Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out
her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her
family. But she saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like
her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they
did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every
older man a chauvinist just because they point that out. H

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 13:39, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

I think
Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably
sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's
Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and
well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the real
thing.
This
doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin.
H
I can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but
Arthurson gave the jist of it. I think the idea that Margaret was sad and
lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older
man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of
her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children?
It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were
probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological
children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our
real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather
than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of
purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated
dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may have been
disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so
if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life
actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval
women.
Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have
no reason to assume that she would be would be so gullible and easily
exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt
shortchanged by life?
IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by
historians. Some (especially Tudor) presume her to be mentally unbalanced
and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth
must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and
people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true
that she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why
she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters
with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones -
after all with HT's fragile Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with
another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque
was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of
Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a real member of the
House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of
course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since
there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion
that all women are at the mercy of their reproductive system.
Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely
that must be confirmation that the Princes were dead. If they were alive,
it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may
have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the
conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads of Europe, so you couldn't
easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was
an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?

Nico

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
<> wrote:
See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in
Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He
claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but
that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With
the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable.
H

Nico,
Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out her energy in the work
she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her family. But she
saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like her
siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which
they did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to
call every older man a chauvinist just because they point that out.I wouldn't say all older men are chauvinists. Actually, Blockmans isn't that old - he was born 1945, but I think he is being sexist about Margaret if he thinks she was so unhappy about not having children, that it clouded her judgement. I really don't think he would judge a man is the same light, and that is the problem I have with him. Nico On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 14:48, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
But Hilary, the fact is that men almost always point superior fingers at
important women and categorise them by their sex, looks and age, not their
characters and abilities. Women were inferior creatures, and had no business
wielding power or scheming against men. If they did that, they were hysterical,
vengeful witches. If a bloke did it, he was justified and an adornment to his
sex. Something like that, anyway. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck
was small - she goes to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore
not at all ressemble Edward.
Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out
her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her
family. But she saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like
her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they
did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every
older man a chauvinist just because they point that out. H

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 13:39, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

I think
Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably
sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's
Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and
well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the real
thing.
This
doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin.
H
I can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but
Arthurson gave the jist of it. I think the idea that Margaret was sad and
lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older
man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of
her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children?
It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were
probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological
children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our
real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather
than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of
purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated
dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may have been
disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so
if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life
actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval
women.
Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have
no reason to assume that she would be would be so gullible and easily
exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt
shortchanged by life?
IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by
historians. Some (especially Tudor) presume her to be mentally unbalanced
and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth
must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and
people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true
that she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why
she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters
with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones -
after all with HT's fragile Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with
another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque
was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of
Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a real member of the
House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of
course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since
there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion
that all women are at the mercy of their reproductive system.
Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely
that must be confirmation that the Princes were dead. If they were alive,
it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may
have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the
conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads of Europe, so you couldn't
easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was
an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?

Nico

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
<> wrote:
See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in
Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He
claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but
that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With
the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable.
H

Hilary wrote:Thanks
David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck was small - she goes to
great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore not at all
ressemble Edward.That is true. Wroe did suggest that Warbeck wasn't that tall. She estimated from his clothing that his wife was almost as tall as him, and said he was slightly shorter than HT; (maybe about 5'9"?). There really does seem to be huge height differentials in the family, with Clarence being about 5'4", Richard 5'8", Margaret almost 6', and Edward 6'3-4". It makes me wonder about the Blaybourne story because the tall ones were conceived in Rouen and the smaller ones elsewhere (I don't know how tall the others were.) Actually, Perkin's appearance seems more Plantagenet than Edward, The nose and eyebrow area look like Edward, but the rest reminds me more of Clarence from the Rous Roll and Wavrin sketch that appeared in the J-AH book.Nico On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 17:47, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
Nico,
Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out her energy in the work
she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her family. But she
saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like her
siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which
they did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to
call every older man a chauvinist just because they point that out.I wouldn't say all older men are chauvinists. Actually, Blockmans isn't that old - he was born 1945, but I think he is being sexist about Margaret if he thinks she was so unhappy about not having children, that it clouded her judgement. I really don't think he would judge a man is the same light, and that is the problem I have with him. Nico On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 14:48, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
But Hilary, the fact is that men almost always point superior fingers at
important women and categorise them by their sex, looks and age, not their
characters and abilities. Women were inferior creatures, and had no business
wielding power or scheming against men. If they did that, they were hysterical,
vengeful witches. If a bloke did it, he was justified and an adornment to his
sex. Something like that, anyway. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas
Kymbe?
Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck
was small - she goes to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore
not at all ressemble Edward.
Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out
her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her
family. But she saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like
her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they
did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every
older man a chauvinist just because they point that out. H

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 13:39, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []"
<> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

I think
Margaret did believe - because she desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably
sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's
Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and
well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the real
thing.
This
doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin.
H
I can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but
Arthurson gave the jist of it. I think the idea that Margaret was sad and
lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older
man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of
her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children?
It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were
probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological
children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our
real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather
than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of
purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated
dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may have been
disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so
if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life
actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval
women.
Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have
no reason to assume that she would be would be so gullible and easily
exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt
shortchanged by life?
IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by
historians. Some (especially Tudor) presume her to be mentally unbalanced
and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth
must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and
people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true
that she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why
she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters
with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones -
after all with HT's fragile Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with
another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque
was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of
Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a real member of the
House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of
course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since
there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion
that all women are at the mercy of their reproductive system.
Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely
that must be confirmation that the Princes were dead. If they were alive,
it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may
have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the
conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads of Europe, so you couldn't
easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was
an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?

Nico

On Wednesday, 8 October
2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
<> wrote:
See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in
Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He
claims that she did indeed devote a lot of time to other peoples' children but
that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With
the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable.
H

Hi, Nico -

My recollection is that the experts said Richard would have been 5'7" or 5'8" without the scoliosis but the curvature in his spine took off several inches off his height.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 2:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?


Hilary wrote:Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck was small - she goes
to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore not at all ressemble Edward.

That is true. Wroe did suggest that Warbeck wasn't that tall. She estimated from his clothing that his wife was almost as
tall as him, and said he was slightly shorter than HT; (maybe about 5'9"?). There really does seem to be huge height differentials in the family, with Clarence being about 5'4", Richard 5'8", Margaret almost 6', and Edward 6'3-4". It makes me wonder about
the Blaybourne story because the tall ones were conceived in Rouen and the smaller ones elsewhere (I don't know how tall the others were.) Actually, Perkin's appearance seems more Plantagenet than Edward, The nose and eyebrow area look like Edward, but
the rest reminds me more of Clarence from the Rous Roll and Wavrin sketch that appeared in the J-AH book.

Nico




On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 17:47, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:


Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret
and points out her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her family. But she saw extremely little of her husband and, if she was at all like her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they did.
This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every older man a chauvinist just because they point that out.

I wouldn't say all older men are chauvinists. Actually, Blockmans isn't that old
- he was born 1945, but I think he is being sexist about Margaret if he thinks she was so unhappy about not having children, that it clouded her judgement. I really don't think he would judge a man is the same light, and that is the problem I have with him.


Nico


On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 14:48, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:


But Hilary, the fact is that men almost always point superior fingers at important women and categorise them by their sex, looks and age, not their characters and abilities. Women were inferior creatures, and had no business wielding power or scheming
against men. If they did that, they were hysterical, vengeful witches. If a bloke did it, he was justified and an adornment to his sex. Something like that, anyway. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?
Thanks David. I would add that Wroe says that Warbeck was small - she goes to great lengths to say how small he was, and did therefore not at all ressemble Edward.
Nico, Blockman is very fair to Margaret and points out her energy in the work she did in Bruges and her affection for Mary and her family. But she saw extremely
little of her husband and, if she was at all like her siblings, she must have been unhappy that she lacked the families which they did. This is seen in her religious devotions. I think it unfair to call every older man a chauvinist just because they point
that out. H


On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 13:39, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

I think Margaret did believe - because she
desperately wanted to. She was a justifiably sad, lonely woman. She was 'sold' him. And BTW he wasn't a boatman, (that's Wroe) he came from a rich merchant family and was well-educated and well-travelled, which was why it was so easy to pass him off as the
real thing.
This
doesn't mean I don't think Richard could have survived, but not as Perkin. H
I can't find the full Wim Blockmans article, but Arthurson gave the jist of it.
I think the idea that Margaret was sad and lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological
children? It would appear that her relationships with Mary, Phillip and Margaret were probably closer than what many aristocrats had with their biological children. Phillip said of her,"she behaved towards us as if she was our real mother ... and moreover
because she has suffered inestimable damage rather than abandon us." The rest of her life seemed to have plenty of purpose to it, and the Christine Weightman book paints a picture of a dedicated dowager duchess, with a very active life. Her marriage may
have been disappointing, but she was only in her early 30s when Charles the Bold died, so if it mattered that much, she had opportunities to try again. Her life actually didn't look that bad at all compared to a lot of medieval women.
Even if Margaret was personally unhappy, we still have no reason to assume that
she would be would be so gullible and easily exploited. Would we make the same assumptions about a man who felt shortchanged by life?
IMHO, Margaret had been horribly maligned by historians. Some (especially Tudor)
presume her to be mentally unbalanced and motivated by revenge. I don't find that convincing. Bosworth must have hit her hard, but she came from an era when battles were lost and people had to be resiliant in the face of personal tragedy. It is true that
she was proud of the House of York, but that raises the other question: why she would want to besmirch it with imposters with no connection it (imposters with a connection however might be a different matter; even illegitmate ones - after all with HT's fragile
Beaufort claim, they would only be competing with another person of 'bastard blood.') Whether the Jehan de Werbeque was a rich merchant (Arthurson) or drunken boatman who live in slummy part of Tournai (Wroe) wouldn't really matter; Perkin would not be a
real member of the House of York, and I can't see any less being good enough for her. Of course, there is the suggestion that she must also be irrational, but since there is no evidence that she was, it probably comes from the ridiculous notion that all women
are at the mercy of their reproductive system.
Also, if Margaret had to use an imposter, then surely that must be confirmation
that the Princes were dead. If they were alive, it would be insane not to use the real ones. The stalking horse theory may have worked with Lambert Simnel, but Warbeck was more deeply involved with the conspiracy and was interacting with the crowned heads
of Europe, so you couldn't easily replace him with someone else. I may be wrong, but if Warbeck was an imposter and the Princes were alive, where were they?

Nico


On Wednesday, 8 October 2014, 12:27, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


See Blockman 'The Devotions of a Lonely Duchess in Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal' pp29-46 1992. He claims that she did indeed devote
a lot of time to other peoples' children but that was to substitute for lack of her own and her own loveless marriage. With the fall of the Yorkist dynasty she was even more vulnerable. H

Hi Nico,I have my doubts about the body heights of the members of the York family you quote.. Especially the ones JAH proposes in his book on Clarence. The only reason he thinks that Clarence was smaller than Richard is the fact that de Wavrin gave the wrong ages of the boys when they stayed in Flanders in 1461. I find hisargumentation far from convincing. Also the body height of Richard is not at all clear. As a matter of fact the scientists never produced an exact answer. There were wild assumptions that the scoliosis made Richard up to one foot shorter than he would have been if his back was straight.Even the estimation of the length of a personby measuring the femur can not be 100% exact, as people have different proportions- some have short legs, others long legs. And it is by no means unusual that siblings vary considerably in their height.The other thing that is questionable IMHO is to take illustrations in illuminated books for exact likenesses.The Warbeck portrait is another matter. I think, it definitely has a resemblance with Edward's portraits. But that does nor proof anything. He could have been a bastard son of Clarence as well. Only in (Ricardian) novels the children always look exactly like their father.Eva

So there is no way for them to come to an exact height? Because of their remark about his *maybe* being up to a foot shorter, most articles have pounced on that. For all we know, it was only an inch or two.GildaOn Oct 8, 2014, at 4:33 PM, eva.pitter@... [] wrote: Also the body height of Richard is not at all clear. As a matter of fact the scientists never produced an exact answer. There were wild assumptions that the scoliosis made Richard up to one foot shorter than he would have been if his back was straight.Even the estimation of the length of a personby measuring the femur can not be 100% exact, as people have different proportions- some have short legs, others long legs. And it is by no means unusual that siblings vary considerably in their height.Eva

Hi Eva and Gilda,Clarence's height is speculative. JA-H couldn't prove the skeleton was his. He also did some comparisons with the characters on the Rous Roll, but that would assume that they were accurately drawn to scale, which is doubtful in that era. So we only know for sure that Edward and Richard's heights and that Margaret was tall for a woman. I am very skeptical of Richard's height being reduced by "up to a foot;" surely they can be more
accurate in their estimation. There were contemporary reports of him being slightly built, but if he were the size of a dwarf, I'm sure much more would have been said at the time. Even so, a height difference between brothers of 7-8 inches is quite unusual, though not impossible.Nico On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 13:08, "Gilda Felt gildaevf@... []" <> wrote:
So there is no way for them to come to an exact height? Because of their remark about his *maybe* being up to a foot shorter, most articles have pounced on that. For all we know, it was only an inch or two.GildaOn Oct 8, 2014, at 4:33 PM, eva.pitter@... [] wrote: Also the body
height of Richard is not at all clear. As a matter of fact the scientists never produced an exact answer. There were wild assumptions that the scoliosis made Richard up to one foot shorter than he would have been if his back was straight.Even the estimation of the length of a personby measuring the femur can not be 100% exact, as people have different proportions- some have short legs, others long legs. And it is by no means unusual that siblings vary considerably in their height.Eva

Gilda wrote:there is no way for them to come to an exact height? Because of their remark about his *maybe* being up to a foot shorter, most articles have pounced on that. For all we know, it was only an inch or two.Marie here:The article published in The Lancet earlier this year has what seems to be the definitive analysis of Richard's spinal condition and its effects on his health, height, etc. It's available for free, you just have to register with the website:The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance : The Lancet The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance ... The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance. By - Dr Jo Appleby PhD, Piers D Mitchell PhD, Claire Robinson MSc, Alison Brough MSc, Guy Rutty ... View on www.thelancet.com Preview by Yahoo

Marie, I read the "Lancet"article now, but I can find no information on Richard's height in it. It only says "histrunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs". In the interview Pierce Mitchell says, he would have been 2-3 inches shorter than he would have been without scoliosis. Now that's an exact information!I am not a bit wiser after having read this article, I am sorry to say.Eva

Hi, Eva & Marie -
I agree with you, Eva. The article itself seems to be very short. There are a couple of "MP4" videos which I couldn't view, and an audio interview with two of the contributors, not Jo Appleby. That lasts about 12 min. but ends before the interview is finished,
for some reason.

Someone said that the length of the long bones is not a reliable guide to a person's height, but surely with 90% of Richard's skeleton surviving, they should be able to judge his height during life fairly accurately. Anyway, as I mentioned before, I'm fairly
sure that shortly after the discovery of the remains, they said he would have been about 5'8" if he had had no scoliosis. And although it was mentioned that the scoliosis could have taken up to 12" off that, I think that figure came from the most extreme examples
of scoliosis victims and not Richard in particular.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "eva.pitter@... []" <>
Sent: 9 October, 2014 5:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and her last husband, Thomas Kymbe?

Marie, I read the "Lancet"article now, but I can find no information on Richard's height in it. It only says "his
trunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs". In the interview Pierce Mitchell says, he would have been 2-3 inches shorter than he would have been without scoliosis. Now that's an exact information!
I am not a bit wiser after having read this article, I am sorry to say.
Eva

Eva wrote:"Marie, I read the "Lancet" article now, but I can find no information on Richard's height in it. It only says "histrunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs". In the interview Pierce Mitchell says, he would have been 2-3 inches shorter than he would have been without scoliosis. Now that's an exact information!I am not a bit wiser after having read this article, I am sorry to say."Marie:Yeah, okay I remembered the 2-3 inches but thought it was in the article - so it was in the accompanying video feature, which my link also took you to! No problem, then. From the paper itself you also have an image of the spinal curve and the Cobb angle, and that is exact information and rather less than the figure calculated by some Society members who had an article published in the Bulletin shortly before.I can't recall exactly where, but we were told quite early on that Richard would have measured 5ft 8in without the scoliosis. That, as has been remarked on the forum, was easy to estimate given the near completeness of the skeleton and it is information that has been in the public domain for a long time. The problem back then, as you no doubt remember, was that the dig team, who had no understanding of scoliosis, were bandying about wildly improbable estimations of the amount of height that the curvature would have gobbled up - as much as 1 ft was suggested. So now you know that he stood 5 ft 5 in to 5 ft 6 in tall. Problem solved, no?

Eva wrote :

"Marie, I read the "Lancet"article now, but I can find no information on Richard's height in it. It only says "his trunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs". In the interview Pierce Mitchell says, he would have been 2-3 inches shorter than he would have been without scoliosis. Now that's an exact information! I am not a bit wiser after having read this article, I am sorry to say."

Carol responds:

I started to respond to Marie but lost my post, so I'll respond to Eva instead. Although the article doesn't mention just how much shorter than 5'8" Richard would have been without the scoliosis, I think it's clear from both the reconstructed spine and the last paragraph that the difference would not have been substantial. First, let's compare the scientifically reconstructed version of the spine, here, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673614607625/images?imageId=fx2%c2%a7ionType=green&hasDownloadImagesLink=true with Jo Appleby's original version, here: http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/img/science/injuries/spinec.jpg

Notice the significant difference in the alignment. Jo's original Richard would have had difficulty standing up straight or concealing his abnormality, especially given the effect it would have had on his ribs: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/panels/13/feb/skeleton_interactive/img/img_panel_1359651618.jpg

But the authors of the article (including Jo, whose views must have been revised by the reconstruction and the views expressed by her colleagues in this project, most of whom would have considerably more experience than a recent PhD), now confidently state that Richard's appearance would have been nearly normal (read "only a few inches shorter than he would have been otherwise, with a slightly raised right shoulder concealable by his tailor or armorer") Here's the final paragraph, which I think sums up their conclusions well:

"The physical disfigurement from Richard's scoliosis was probably slight since he had a well balanced curve. His trunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs, and his right shoulder a little higher than the left. However, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimised the visual impact of this. A curve of 7090° would not have caused impaired exercise tolerance from reduced lung capacity,5 and we identified no evidence that Richard would have walked with an overt limp, because the leg bones are symmetric and well formed."

Elsewhere they say that the curve is limited to the thoracic region--the upper and lower spine were normal and aligned. His gait (stride) was normal, as was the foramen magnum (the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes to the brain). We know from an earlier article that his legs and arms, though slender, were not only normal but those of a strong and active man. Earlier in the article, the authors state that his lungs would not have been affected by the scoliosis, nor would his ability to exercise.

My only quibble is the suggestion that adolescent onset scoliosis might begin as early as age ten, especially given that the authors state in the same sentence that it would have begun in the last years of growth. Given that adolescence started later in the fifteenth century than it does now, Richard's spinal curvature might not have been noticeable even to his tailor until he was between seventeen and twenty. Even then, the authors point out that the changes in vertebral anatomy are subtle, and, again, "the physical disfigurement from Richard's scoliosis was probably slight."

I think that, despite not answering the specific question of Richard's height, the article is very important and provides strong ammunition to counter the hunchback myth--in contrast to Jo Appleby's original comments and reconstructions, which, unfortunately, helped to perpetuate the myth.

Carol

Hi Marie,Sorry that I reply so late. Anyway thank you, problem solved. That is probably as exact an answer aboutRichard height that as we can get.Eva