The Dublin King

Thoroughly enjoying JAH's new book, which arrived a few days ago. I have only read a couple of chapters but it is full of evidence and analysis.

Mary

Interesting Hilary. Looked up Lambert on Google and it is an Irish surname but has Norman French origins. I always thought that Lambert Simnel was a bit of an odd name as is Perkin Warbeck. Do you know if Simnel has Irish origins?

Jan here. Another dose of knowledge from Wikipedia to feed speculation about the name Lambert! I typed in "Jane Shore" and read:
Born in London in about 1445, Elizabeth Lambert was the daughter of a prosperous merchant, John Lambert, and his wife Amy, who was the daughter of a well-off grocer named Robert Marshall. The name "Jane", which has sometimes been attached to her, was the invention of a 17th-century playwright (Heywood),[1] because during the course of the sixteenth century, her real first name was omitted, then forgotten by authors.



On 18 Jan 2015, at 17:58, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting Hilary. Looked up Lambert on Google and it is an Irish surname but has Norman French origins. I always thought that Lambert Simnel was a bit of an odd name as is Perkin Warbeck. Do you know if Simnel has Irish origins?

Hilary wrote:JAH "devotes quite a bit of space to discussing the boy's origins and surname, which is fair enough. He doesn't however consider his first name. I have quite a large database of medieval nobility and gentry now and nowhere does the name Lambert appear as a first name. However, it wasn't unusual to use the mother's surname as a first name for one of her children, if she came from an impresssive family. This went on until about the nineteenth century when second names crept in and the mother's surname could be used then. I have to say my favorite example so far is Dabridgecourt Belcher - think of being his nurse!"
Marie:First, a belated Happy New Year, all. Surnames as first names didn't really come in until after the Reformation, probably because of the pressure t o use saints' names. Exceptions could, of course, occur where the surname was also a bona fide first name/ saint's name, as Lambert is. I have come across an instance of a William Lambert leaving money to a godchild who had been christened Lambert so it's possible Lambert was the mother's surname. I seem to recall Michael Bennett hinted at a possible connection with Elizabeth Lambert aka Jane Shore, but her family actually seem to have called themselves Lambarde. Yet it might be the mother's surname nonetheless. King Henry claimed to the Pope that Lambert was a bastard, so she may not even have been Mrs Simnel.Actually, Lambert did exist as a first name, although it wasn't common. Two examples that spring to mind are Lambert Fossdyke, Abbot of Crowland, and Lambert Langtree. St Lambert was a bishop of Maastricht, so maybe the name came across with Dutch immigrants.

Jan wrote:

"I located Lambert Fossdyke, elected as Abbott of Crowland in 1484 who died shortly afterwards of the sweating sickness, but what is known of Lambert Langtree?"

Marie replies:

Not much - not by me at any rate. I came across his name once or twice in the Patent Rolls. For instance, on 23 November 1485 "Lambert Langtree, king's servant," was made bailiff of young Warwick's manor of Buckby, Northants (which of course was in the king's hands during his minority). I suspect Langtree was a supporter of Tudor's, therefore.

For a bit of fun I've just looked up Simnel (or similar names) in the Oxfordshire marriage registers 1537 - 1820. Not a single incidence of the name or anything like it appears, though there are of course a few Symonds. Now we know some registers are missing/incomplete etc but the City of Oxford is quite well covered, as is the Uni. The DNB says Simnel could have been a nickname for 'baker'. Now 'my' Oxfordshire Lamberts are tradespeople, so I'm inclined more in that direction. H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015, 9:46
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Two or three responses: I also thought Lambert possibly a Scottish/Irish name. The earliest 'titled' Lambert I can find is Sir Thomas Lambert of Skipton Yorks in the 16th century. But there were loads of Lamberts in Oxfordshire - my earliest recorded one is in the Cropredy register in 1542 and Margaret Lambert, born circa 1510 married into the Taverner/Gainsford family. As I've said on here before, there seemed to be a lot of movement from Yorkshire to Oxon/Northants in the fifteenth century, possibly to do with the wool trade as Witney was a centre for cloth. In the registers they are recorded as Lambert, Lombard, Lumbard, depending on the area and the Minister. It's interesting that John Lambert, 'Jane Shore's' father was a Mercer so there could be a tentative connection but who knows - another Amy Licence coming on? The dropping of 'de' in surnames was mostly in the fourteenth century and by the fifteenth century people do have surnames (though not with regularised spelling) as we can see from things like the Feet of Fines (sorry to mildly disagree Marie, in fact I can't of course speak for the ordinary villager). I don't know about young Warwick's manor at Long Buckby but it's perrilously close to the area that Bray and Empson were buying/confiscating to put to sheep - you'll recall that John Rous criticised them, so I'd be surprised if it didn't 'transfer' at some point. Also, MB oversaw all from her base at Collyweston - she probably had a flutter on the wool trade. Perkin Warbeck's name was de Werbecque and we know his parents were Jehan de Werbeque and Nicaise Farou - Nicaise left a will a metre long. On the other hand, Lambert Simnel to me has always had a ring of the 'made up' - to be honest I thought the Irish made it up till I read JAH. Of course Lamberts who were 'foreigners' could have been named after a corruption of the word meaning from Lombardy? H


From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2015, 23:49
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Jan wrote:"I located Lambert Fossdyke, elected as Abbott of Crowland in 1484 who died shortly afterwards of the sweating sickness, but what is known of Lambert Langtree?"
Marie replies:Not much - not by me at any rate. I came across his name once or twice in the Patent Rolls. For instance, on 23 November 1485 "Lambert Langtree, king's servant," was made bailiff of young Warwick's manor of Buckby, Northants (which of course was in the king's hands during his minority). I suspect Langtree was a supporter of Tudor's, therefore.

Pamela wrote:

"Marie, your post raises an interesting point. After Warwick attained his majority, was he allowed his revenues, or did they remain in the king's hands until his execution?"

Marie:

It's a very interesting question. Essentially, Henry performed a magic trick. In November 14487 he finally granted the Countess' petition to be restored to her properties, then - lo and behold! - she immediately surrendered them all to the King. Estates wrested from the Earl of Warwick without any need to attaint him (which would have been difficult anyway since he was under the normal age of criminal responsibility).

Do we know if the Countess knew what the entire deal was from the outset or was there pressure put upon her to surrender the lands once they were back in her possession?

Marie replies:

No we don't. Her voluntary surrender is normally taken at face value, which I find amazing because she had been campaigning for restitution and was now left with just one manor and her grandson with nothing. Also, a couple of years later she was restored to just some of the estates - for life, I seem to recall - so it looks as though she did want them but had been forced to surrender them.

I was reading these posts about Lambert Simnel, with great interest may I add, when a thought occurred to me. Supposedly, if I understand it correctly, Lambert was substituted for Edward of Warwick by those attempting to place him (Edward) on the throne because of the necessity of having a figurehead to lead the rebellion. Once the rebellion had succeeded, then Lambert, with the thanks of those involved one presumes, would return to wherever he'd come from. But why would a figurehead be needed to stand in for Edward of Warwick in the first place? It wasn't seen as necessary to provide a stand-in for Edward (V) during Buckingham's rebellion. Why was one needed in this instance? I also noticed in the Wikipedia article (sorry!) on Lambert that there were rumors of Warwick's death floating around in 1487 prior to the rebellion. Again, not unlike the rumors about Edward (V) during Buckingham's Rebellion. Ostensibly Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward (V) to the throne, yet Richard didn't parade his nephews around to show that they were still alive and in his custody. Even accounting for the differences in outlook between Richard and Henry, why did Henry feel it necessary to parade Edward around? One other thing of note from the Wiki article was that the priest, Richard Simon, originally planned on foisting Simnel off as Richard of Shrewsbury, but decided on Edward of Warwick because of rumors about Warwick's death were floating around. Sounds all nice and neat except  Edward was in Wales and Richard was with his mother in London, while Simon was from Oxford. So, where did Simon get his knowledge of what Edward IV's sons looked like? Simon also supposedly taught Lambert etiquette and educated him so that One contemporary described him as a boy so learned, that, had he ruled, he would have as a learned man.' And all in the space of a few months! Because, supposedly, Simon didn't start training Lambert until the boy was about 10, which occurred in 1487. These people call themselves historians? Which leads me to wonder if Edward wasn't in Henry's custody, either via escaping or never having been there, and that, while Lambert did act as a stand-in for Edward of Warwick, it wasn't for the rebels, but for Henry. Is there any evidence other than anything put out by Henry & Co. that the person Henry held in custody *was* Edward of Warwick? It's not that I don't trust information extracted via threats of, and most likely actual use of, torture, you understand... Doug whose list of books to acquire/read is getting longer and longer...

"[The Countess of Warwick's] voluntary surrender is normally taken at face value, which I find amazing because she had been campaigning for restitution and was now left with just one manor and her grandson with nothing. Also, a couple of years later she was restored to just some of the estates - for life, I seem to recall - so it looks as though she did want them but had been forced to surrender them."

Carol responds:

Reminds me of Elizabeth Woodville's retirement to Bermondsey Abbey is also often depicted as voluntary. When did the countess acquire--and lose--her lands? Was it immediately after Bosworth or nearer to 1487? If Anne Beauchamp viewed Lambert Simnel as a stand-in for her grandson, the Earl of Warwick, I can easily imagine her as a supporter of the rebellion--and Henry punishing her or preempting her efforts.

By the way, isn't a simnel a kind of fruitcake?

Carol, who wondered if the whole forum was sleeping off the New Year's egg nog!

Doug wrote:

Thank you for the quote from the Attainder! Except for me thinking George's son was a bit older, it agrees with what I was thinking. It's not that I doubt there was a Lambert Simnel, it's his being used by the Yorkists as a substitute for Edward of Warwick. Why is there presumed to be a necessity for the Yorkists to have a stand-in for Edward of Warwick in 1487, but it wasn't necessary for Edward V in 1483?"

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Here's my take:

Everyone knew in September 1483 that Edward V and his brother were in the Tower. Edward was already (from the Edwardian Yorkist perspective) the rightful king. All that was required was to rescue and reinstate him (and defeat and execute the "usurper." Of course, the diehard Lancastrians, the French, and the Tudorites didn't want this to happen, so they turned the situation to their advantage with a rumor that the boys were dead. There was, of course, no lookalike and no need for a stand-in.

In the case of Lambert Simnel, Margaret and Lincoln may well have known where the sons of E4 were, but they wanted a different child, one they knew to be Henry VII's prisoner, as king. Rumors that Edward of Warwick wouldn't work, as Henry demonstrated by parading him before the public (and shutting him up again even more securely), so they needed a pretense that he wasn't the true Edward of Warwick and Lambert Simnel was available to play the part. Who he was, where he came from, and how he knew how to act the part are mysteries no one has solved (just as in the case of Perkin Warbeck). He could be the son of a baker with the appropriate but highly unlikely last name of Simnel (a kind of Christmas fruitcake, if I'm right) or the name and parentage could be a kind of joke to cover his real identity--the illegitimate son of one of the York brothers (surely not their sister Margaret's child) or even the real Edward of Warwick, successfully whisked away before his third birthday, but for reasons mentioned in my previous post, I don't think so.

At any rate, the methods used before hadn't worked (they had resulted, many people thought, in the murders of Richard's nephews), so to forestall Henry, they needed a pretender and a pretext. But who was that pretender, and would he actually have become king had Lincoln won the Battle of Stoke? Or would Lincoln have substituted his pliable ex-pupil, the real Earl of Warwick (which I think was the case), or would he have claimed the throne himself?

Even Henry regretted the death of the Earl of Lincoln because he had exactly the same questions.

Carol

I can't comment on the Simnel thing because, apart from reading JAH I don't really know enough about it. I can't say I buy his idea that the 'princes' probably died young because Edward's daughters didn't live to a great age - we know (or I do from my data) that women didn't live as long because of the risks associated with childbirth. Besides, because some people in a family die young doesn't mean that all will - their maternal grandmother lived to a very good age. What I do know is that, having read a good deal more about Perkin Warbeck, the latter was very clearly an international conspiracy to take interferring Henry's eyes off what was going on in Europe between France, Brittany and the Low Countries - a bit like his earlier and surprisingly successful invasion was a diversionary tactic to divert English ambition from France - Richard had shown himself a hawk in 1475. I find it hard to tease out the foreign element in Simnel. It seems more like the remaining Yorkists clutching at desperate straws. And they probably didn't know what had happened to the princes ( don't think Richard did) and they weren't sure whether Henry did. So it was logical to choose another candidate? Just my very simple view. H
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2015, 13:28
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Thanks Carol for the correction. I did mean Charles the Bold. I have no idea why I made that mistake.

Obviously, this is totally speculative, and the least likely of all the options. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck (if he wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury) are much more likely to have been the offspring of Edward or Clarence. However, even though some men would just accept their wife's illegitimate child as their own, I could see why Charles wouldn't want to. First of all, it would be the inheritance issue, since that child would take precedence over his daughter Mary in the succession. Royalty was an inheritance by blood and that was taken seriously. Perhaps he would have accepted paternity in the case of the baby being a girl, but I don't think Charles would have wanted his blood line supplanted by his wife's bastard, especially if the father was not royalty.
I'm sure he would have expected fidelity from his wife, but it doesn't always work out. That is especially true in a marriage when one partner is often absent, as Charles was. Not long ago on this forum there was a thread where we were discussing whether it was Margaret's desperate loneliness was the reason for her getting involved with Warbeck. I didn't agree with that idea, as I get the impression her life was more fulfilling later on, but it does appear that this marriage was unhappy. Also, what was the reason for Margaret not having children, when she came from a family of women with a high fertility rate? Charles had been previously married for more than 10 years and had only one child. Did he have a problem that repudiating Margaret would have drawn attention to? Even if there wasn't anything he was aware, public knowledge that your wife cheated is a big deal for a man - even now.

Finally, if Charles rejected Margaret, he would be that he would lose the benefit of the alliance with England that came with the marriage.
Therefore, it is easy to see how giving up her child may have been the best option. As for concealing the pregnancy that is more difficult - but you do hear about it. Kate Middleton manages to not show that much of a bump, and she is of a similar height and build to Margaret. I think late medieval clothing would have been even more forgiving.
I don't mean to be sensationalist by raising this issue, but since we are considering Lambert Simnel's identity, all the possibilities are relevant. Did she favour Lambert Simnel over the Earl of Lincoln and the Princes in the Tower, because she wanted her own son to be King?
Nico






On Thursday, 22 January 2015, 22:01, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:


A Simnel cake is a fruit cake which also contains marzipan.
It is traditionally associated with Easter rather than Christmas.

Jess From: justcarol67@... []
Sent: 22/01/2015 18:37
To:
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Doug wrote:

Thank you for the quote from the Attainder! Except for me thinking George's son was a bit older, it agrees with what I was thinking. It's not that I doubt there was a Lambert Simnel, it's his being used by the Yorkists as a substitute for Edward of Warwick. Why is there presumed to be a necessity for the Yorkists to have a stand-in for Edward of Warwick in 1487, but it wasn't necessary for Edward V in 1483?"

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Here's my take:

Everyone knew in September 1483 that Edward V and his brother were in the Tower. Edward was already (from the Edwardian Yorkist perspective) the rightful king. All that was required was to rescue and reinstate him (and defeat and execute the "usurper." Of course, the diehard Lancastrians, the French, and the Tudorites didn't want this to happen, so they turned the situation to their advantage with a rumor that the boys were dead. There was, of course, no lookalike and no need for a stand-in.

In the case of Lambert Simnel, Margaret and Lincoln may well have known where the sons of E4 were, but they wanted a different child, one they knew to be Henry VII's prisoner, as king. Rumors that Edward of Warwick wouldn't work, as Henry demonstrated by parading him before the public (and shutting him up again even more securely), so they needed a pretense that he wasn't the true Edward of Warwick and Lambert Simnel was available to play the part. Who he was, where he came from, and how he knew how to act the part are mysteries no one has solved (just as in the case of Perkin Warbeck). He could be the son of a baker with the appropriate but highly unlikely last name of Simnel (a kind of Christmas fruitcake, if I'm right) or the name and parentage could be a kind of joke to cover his real identity--the illegitimate son of one of the York brothers (surely not their sister Margaret's child) or even the real Edward of Warwick, successfully whisked away before his third birthday, but for reasons mentioned in my previous post, I don't think so.

At any rate, the methods used before hadn't worked (they had resulted, many people thought, in the murders of Richard's nephews), so to forestall Henry, they needed a pretender and a pretext. But who was that pretender, and would he actually have become king had Lincoln won the Battle of Stoke? Or would Lincoln have substituted his pliable ex-pupil, the real Earl of Warwick (which I think was the case), or would he have claimed the throne himself?

Even Henry regretted the death of the Earl of Lincoln because he had exactly the same questions.

Carol

Posted by: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (39)
[The entire original message is not included.]

It must have been used for the 'lower classes' then because I haven't got a single one between the Conquest and the time we're talking about and I've now got getting on for 50,000 records. Glad you popped up David. I stumbled upon the Register of the Greyfriars (one of the online ancient books) and there was a Deurose there - you may already know this. Incidentally, there was also Tom Parr and another squire who also died at Barnet as well as those we know well. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015, 11:27
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Hello, regarding the origin of Lambert. It is exclusively a personal name / forename or christian name. Its use precedes the use of surnames by many centuries. As Marie points out there was a Saint Lambert in Maastricht I think.
It is just a matter of fashion that has caused it to die out as a forename.
So it is like Baldwin - a very ancient personal name that now is seen as a surname because it had been used as a patronymic, but virtually died out as a given name.
It seems to have maintained a popularity on the continent, I have found a Lambert Simenon.
As for Perkin, it is a diminutive form of Peter.
Kind regardsDavid






Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 19 Jan 2015 10:41:44, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote: For a bit of fun I've just looked up Simnel (or similar names) in the Oxfordshire marriage registers 1537 - 1820. Not a single incidence of the name or anything like it appears, though there are of course a few Symonds. Now we know some registers are missing/incomplete etc but the City of Oxford is quite well covered, as is the Uni. The DNB says Simnel could have been a nickname for 'baker'. Now 'my' Oxfordshire Lamberts are tradespeople, so I'm inclined more in that direction. H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015, 9:46
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Two or three responses: I also thought Lambert possibly a Scottish/Irish name. The earliest 'titled' Lambert I can find is Sir Thomas Lambert of Skipton Yorks in the 16th century. But there were loads of Lamberts in Oxfordshire - my earliest recorded one is in the Cropredy register in 1542 and Margaret Lambert, born circa 1510 married into the Taverner/Gainsford family. As I've said on here before, there seemed to be a lot of movement from Yorkshire to Oxon/Northants in the fifteenth century, possibly to do with the wool trade as Witney was a centre for cloth. In the registers they are recorded as Lambert, Lombard, Lumbard, depending on the area and the Minister. It's interesting that John Lambert, 'Jane Shore's' father was a Mercer so there could be a tentative connection but who knows - another Amy Licence coming on? The dropping of 'de' in surnames was mostly in the fourteenth century and by the fifteenth century people do have surnames (though not with regularised spelling) as we can see from things like the Feet of Fines (sorry to mildly disagree Marie, in fact I can't of course speak for the ordinary villager). I don't know about young Warwick's manor at Long Buckby but it's perrilously close to the area that Bray and Empson were buying/confiscating to put to sheep - you'll recall that John Rous criticised them, so I'd be surprised if it didn't 'transfer' at some point. Also, MB oversaw all from her base at Collyweston - she probably had a flutter on the wool trade. Perkin Warbeck's name was de Werbecque and we know his parents were Jehan de Werbeque and Nicaise Farou - Nicaise left a will a metre long. On the other hand, Lambert Simnel to me has always had a ring of the 'made up' - to be honest I thought the Irish made it up till I read JAH. Of course Lamberts who were 'foreigners' could have been named after a corruption of the word meaning from Lombardy? H


From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2015, 23:49
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Jan wrote:"I located Lambert Fossdyke, elected as Abbott of Crowland in 1484 who died shortly afterwards of the sweating sickness, but what is known of Lambert Langtree?"
Marie replies:Not much - not by me at any rate. I came across his name once or twice in the Patent Rolls. For instance, on 23 November 1485 "Lambert Langtree, king's servant," was made bailiff of young Warwick's manor of Buckby, Northants (which of course was in the king's hands during his minority). I suspect Langtree was a supporter of Tudor's, therefore.

Hilary,Thanks for pointing out the Duerose in the Register of the Greyfriars. Having checked up on my records, I am sure one of the family history researchers has spotted this in the past. I think that I came to the conclusion that the individual was a member of the Devereux family, using one of their odd spellings. The family de Ros or Roose also gave us a few red herrings.
Regarding the Parrs, I worked for several years in the town of Kendal, where my office looked over the river Kent to the ruins of Kendal Castle, which was once the seat of the Parrs. Local legend likes to have Catherine being born there - but this is virtually impossible.
I had intended to answer the link that someone had posted regarding the origin of the name Kendall. The web article indicated that Kendal was a recently created town - and hence could not be the source of the suname. Nothing could be further from the truth - its market charter is dated 1198 and it has two ruined castles. It was historically referred to as Kirkby Kendal. Its 'twin' town in the next valley was Kirkby Lonsdale. Situated like Hornby castle in the Lune valley.

Kind regardsDavid




Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 19 Jan 2015 12:36:34, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote:

It must have been used for the 'lower classes' then because I haven't got a single one between the Conquest and the time we're talking about and I've now got getting on for 50,000 records. Glad you popped up David. I stumbled upon the Register of the Greyfriars (one of the online ancient books) and there was a Deurose there - you may already know this. Incidentally, there was also Tom Parr and another squire who also died at Barnet as well as those we know well. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015, 11:27
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Hello, regarding the origin of Lambert. It is exclusively a personal name / forename or christian name. Its use precedes the use of surnames by many centuries. As Marie points out there was a Saint Lambert in Maastricht I think.
It is just a matter of fashion that has caused it to die out as a forename.
So it is like Baldwin - a very ancient personal name that now is seen as a surname because it had been used as a patronymic, but virtually died out as a given name.
It seems to have maintained a popularity on the continent, I have found a Lambert Simenon.
As for Perkin, it is a diminutive form of Peter.
Kind regardsDavid






Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 19 Jan 2015 10:41:44, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote: For a bit of fun I've just looked up Simnel (or similar names) in the Oxfordshire marriage registers 1537 - 1820. Not a single incidence of the name or anything like it appears, though there are of course a few Symonds. Now we know some registers are missing/incomplete etc but the City of Oxford is quite well covered, as is the Uni. The DNB says Simnel could have been a nickname for 'baker'. Now 'my' Oxfordshire Lamberts are tradespeople, so I'm inclined more in that direction. H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015, 9:46
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Two or three responses: I also thought Lambert possibly a Scottish/Irish name. The earliest 'titled' Lambert I can find is Sir Thomas Lambert of Skipton Yorks in the 16th century. But there were loads of Lamberts in Oxfordshire - my earliest recorded one is in the Cropredy register in 1542 and Margaret Lambert, born circa 1510 married into the Taverner/Gainsford family. As I've said on here before, there seemed to be a lot of movement from Yorkshire to Oxon/Northants in the fifteenth century, possibly to do with the wool trade as Witney was a centre for cloth. In the registers they are recorded as Lambert, Lombard, Lumbard, depending on the area and the Minister. It's interesting that John Lambert, 'Jane Shore's' father was a Mercer so there could be a tentative connection but who knows - another Amy Licence coming on? The dropping of 'de' in surnames was mostly in the fourteenth century and by the fifteenth century people do have surnames (though not with regularised spelling) as we can see from things like the Feet of Fines (sorry to mildly disagree Marie, in fact I can't of course speak for the ordinary villager). I don't know about young Warwick's manor at Long Buckby but it's perrilously close to the area that Bray and Empson were buying/confiscating to put to sheep - you'll recall that John Rous criticised them, so I'd be surprised if it didn't 'transfer' at some point. Also, MB oversaw all from her base at Collyweston - she probably had a flutter on the wool trade. Perkin Warbeck's name was de Werbecque and we know his parents were Jehan de Werbeque and Nicaise Farou - Nicaise left a will a metre long. On the other hand, Lambert Simnel to me has always had a ring of the 'made up' - to be honest I thought the Irish made it up till I read JAH. Of course Lamberts who were 'foreigners' could have been named after a corruption of the word meaning from Lombardy? H


From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2015, 23:49
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Jan wrote:"I located Lambert Fossdyke, elected as Abbott of Crowland in 1484 who died shortly afterwards of the sweating sickness, but what is known of Lambert Langtree?"
Marie replies:Not much - not by me at any rate. I came across his name once or twice in the Patent Rolls. For instance, on 23 November 1485 "Lambert Langtree, king's servant," was made bailiff of young Warwick's manor of Buckby, Northants (which of course was in the king's hands during his minority). I suspect Langtree was a supporter of Tudor's, therefore.

Posted by: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (53) Visit Your Group New Members 1 New Photos 1 " Privacy " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use

[The entire original message is not included.]

Has the title of Marie's new book been announced yet? Can it be preordered on Amazon?

Will it also contain her study on HVII's marriage intentions immediately after Bosworth that, as Marie hinted at, did not include EoY until he was made change his mind back to Christmas 1483 plan? Mac

Well Perkin was small and George was small, that is according to JAH. :) :) H
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015, 13:43
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

It has always made me curious that only two letters of the alphabet separate Warwick from Warbeck. I know....coincidence. But as with everything about this whole pretenders' mystery, it is yet another peculiarity about names. Sandra =^..^=

From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:36 PM To: Subject: Re: The Dublin King Eileen wrote:
Hi Doug...I was thinking along lines of maybe the real Warwick,..say George had managed to get him to Ireland..after being crowned in Dublin...being so young ..never came over to England with the Yorkist party and thus was never taken after Stow..who LS was and what was the real identity of the Warwick in the Tower I know not...as usual there are more questions than answers..and where he went to after that....all a mystery... Doug here: If something along the lines of what you've conjectured did occur, that might explain Henry's supposed regrets at having Warwick executed along with Warbeck: Henry still didn't know if the person in the Tower was the real Warwick (and possible claimant to the throne) or a boy substituted years earlier by Clarence. Either way, however, Henry still went ahead and executed him, presumably because, as it was a joint escape attempt, whoever the person was, he'd attempted to help someone commit treason by assisting Warbeck. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too! Doug

Excellent thoughts. I think we have all wondered about the huge swirl of time, place, people and fate which rumbled about the family, especially Richard.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

I can't explain that David but what I am beginning to see is a much wider foreign conspiracy which also embraced Richard and which also explains this so-called evidence.

When I was /still am searching for Carol about Richard's supporters in 1483 I examined my own rather sweeping statement that the Plantagenets were not good at maintaining internal networks because of their foreign marriage policy. I'm happy to say that I confirmed that - what networks they had like the Holands, the Bohuns etc self-extinguished by Richard's time and the Bourchiers were questionable to say the least. But they did succeed in one huge network and that was - the Beauforts. As well as English/Welsh networks MB's aunt was Queen of Scotland, her cousin (although before her time) had been married to Louis XI; another, as you probably know, married Francis of Brittany.

So climb for a moment into the paranoid head of Louis XI. It's taken him years and years to get the wretched English out of France and half a dozen years' later the English get another warrior king. He tries to buy him off by a marriage to his sister-in-law but that doesn't work. In the process, however, he finds out all he needs to know about the brothers Plantagenet from his good friend Warwick. Edward is clever but lazy, George is fragile and unstable, Richard is loyal but boring. He backs Warwick in 1470 but doesn't risk too much and when Edward does a bit of sabre-rattling in 1475 he's already negotiated to buy him off, knowing that Edward is more worried about finances and too lazy to fight.

And then the first shock comes. Loyal, boring little brother says he doesn't agree; he wants to invade France and even Louis's horses and Edward's reprimand can't buy him off. Still, not to worry, he's nowhere in the pecking order. But then in 1483 the unpredictable English throw out a boy king and boring little brother is on the throne. Boring little brother who in the meantime has invaded Scotland and proved himself a fit soldier. To Louis here's another potential Henry V, and this one's more handsome and won't have to rely on French horses getting stuck in the mud! And, having met him, he knows nothing will buy him off.

So he starts the rumour campaign in London - he's learned from the English how to weaken kings by doing that. And then he dies, to be succeeded by his daughter who will prove herself down the line much less adept at foreign policy. She clutches at HT and his band of chip-on-shoulder dispossessed in an attempt to divert Richard even more from anything French. Unfortunately, a bit like the LFR team dare I say, she doesn't put enough effort in thinking what would happen if HT actually won. The worst scenario, no doubt, would be that Richard would be driven into exile like Edward and the quarrels would go on for years whilst he tried to get back. That would keep France - and Scotland - very happen so that they could pursue their own ambitions in Europe without English interferance.

An August day, a charge down the hillside and the unimaginable happens. And the 'upstart' is there to start prodding France again. OK he's no warrior, but he has the formidable Oxford as commander and Daubeney leading the fleet. And down the line, when things become untenable yet again, Richard of York has to rise from the dead and start diversions once more. And all these rumours, which have gathered pace through the years encouraged by Henry, are very useful in destabilising England yet again.

( BTW the cast for 'rescuing' the princes has always been so limited - perhaps because we get diverted by small issues such as keys. I'd throw EW and Louis XI into the melting pot as well).

Phew - sorry this is so long but it makes so much more politcal sense than Buckingham tantrums, MB plots and Hastings executions. Not to say of course that these weren't a gift to Louis. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015, 15:08
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Hilary, Sandra and anyone who commented on the Dublin King / Pretenders thread.

It strikes me that one of the significant facts contained in Arthurson's book is the fact that Perkin Warbeck actually supports the 'traditional' view by accusing Richard of 'seizing' the throne and disinheriting him (as Richard of Shrewsbury) and his brother. The explanation for his survival is that King Richard handed the boys over to a lord to be killed - but after having killed his brother (Edward V) the lord took pity on him and released him under an oath to remain silent.

I think that the letters sent by PW are quite significant as regards the fate af the Princes and (depending on your belief as to his true identity) are either an eyewitness account or represent the most widely believed account among potential Yorkist rebels / supporters.

I would be interested to hear any explanation for this?

Kind regards

David


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 4 Feb 2015 15:10:14, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote:

Well Perkin was small and George was small, that is according to JAH. :) :) H

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015, 13:43
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

It has always made me curious that only two letters of the alphabet separate Warwick from Warbeck. I know....coincidence. But as with everything about this whole pretenders' mystery, it is yet another peculiarity about names.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:36 PM

To:

Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Eileen wrote:

Hi Doug...I was thinking along lines of maybe the real Warwick,..say George had managed to get him to Ireland..after being crowned in Dublin...being so young ..never came over to England with the Yorkist party and thus was never taken after Stow..who LS was and what was the real identity of the Warwick in the Tower I know not...as usual there are more questions than answers..and where he went to after that....all a mystery...

Doug here:

If something along the lines of what you've conjectured did occur, that might explain Henry's supposed regrets at having Warwick executed along with Warbeck: Henry still didn't know if the person in the Tower was the real Warwick (and possible claimant to the throne) or a boy substituted years earlier by Clarence. Either way, however, Henry still went ahead and executed him, presumably because, as it was a joint escape attempt, whoever the person was, he'd attempted to help someone commit treason by assisting Warbeck.

Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

Doug

We also know that few people ever saw the “Perkin” letters, they may well have been wilfully misquoted and written after torture.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 23 February 2015 16:20
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Thanks Pamela. Like everything it's proving it. Oh for just one letter ...... H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015, 16:15
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Excellent thoughts. I think we have all wondered about the huge swirl of time, place, people and fate which rumbled about the family, especially Richard.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

I can't explain that David but what I am beginning to see is a much wider foreign conspiracy which also embraced Richard and which also explains this so-called evidence.

When I was /still am searching for Carol about Richard's supporters in 1483 I examined my own rather sweeping statement that the Plantagenets were not good at maintaining internal networks because of their foreign marriage policy. I'm happy to say that I confirmed that - what networks they had like the Holands, the Bohuns etc self-extinguished by Richard's time and the Bourchiers were questionable to say the least. But they did succeed in one huge network and that was - the Beauforts. As well as English/Welsh networks MB's aunt was Queen of Scotland, her cousin (although before her time) had been married to Louis XI; another, as you probably know, married Francis of Brittany.

So climb for a moment into the paranoid head of Louis XI. It's taken him years and years to get the wretched English out of France and half a dozen years' later the English get another warrior king. He tries to buy him off by a marriage to his sister-in-law but that doesn't work. In the process, however, he finds out all he needs to know about the brothers Plantagenet from his good friend Warwick. Edward is clever but lazy, George is fragile and unstable, Richard is loyal but boring. He backs Warwick in 1470 but doesn't risk too much and when Edward does a bit of sabre-rattling in 1475 he's already negotiated to buy him off, knowing that Edward is more worried about finances and too lazy to fight.

And then the first shock comes. Loyal, boring little brother says he doesn't agree; he wants to invade France and even Louis's horses and Edward's reprimand can't buy him off. Still, not to worry, he's nowhere in the pecking order. But then in 1483 the unpredictable English throw out a boy king and boring little brother is on the throne. Boring little brother who in the meantime has invaded Scotland and proved himself a fit soldier. To Louis here's another potential Henry V, and this one's more handsome and won't have to rely on French horses getting stuck in the mud! And, having met him, he knows nothing will buy him off.

So he starts the rumour campaign in London - he's learned from the English how to weaken kings by doing that. And then he dies, to be succeeded by his daughter who will prove herself down the line much less adept at foreign policy. She clutches at HT and his band of chip-on-shoulder dispossessed in an attempt to divert Richard even more from anything French. Unfortunately, a bit like the LFR team dare I say, she doesn't put enough effort in thinking what would happen if HT actually won. The worst scenario, no doubt, would be that Richard would be driven into exile like Edward and the quarrels would go on for years whilst he tried to get back. That would keep France - and Scotland - very happen so that they could pursue their own ambitions in Europe without English interferance.

An August day, a charge down the hillside and the unimaginable happens. And the 'upstart' is there to start prodding France again. OK he's no warrior, but he has the formidable Oxford as commander and Daubeney leading the fleet. And down the line, when things become untenable yet again, Richard of York has to rise from the dead and start diversions once more. And all these rumours, which have gathered pace through the years encouraged by Henry, are very useful in destabilising England yet again.

( BTW the cast for 'rescuing' the princes has always been so limited - perhaps because we get diverted by small issues such as keys. I'd throw EW and Louis XI into the melting pot as well).

Phew - sorry this is so long but it makes so much more politcal sense than Buckingham tantrums, MB plots and Hastings executions. Not to say of course that these weren't a gift to Louis. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015, 15:08
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Hilary, Sandra and anyone who commented on the Dublin King / Pretenders thread.

It strikes me that one of the significant facts contained in Arthurson's book is the fact that Perkin Warbeck actually supports the 'traditional' view by accusing Richard of 'seizing' the throne and disinheriting him (as Richard of Shrewsbury) and his brother. The explanation for his survival is that King Richard handed the boys over to a lord to be killed - but after having killed his brother (Edward V) the lord took pity on him and released him under an oath to remain silent.

I think that the letters sent by PW are quite significant as regards the fate af the Princes and (depending on your belief as to his true identity) are either an eyewitness account or represent the most widely believed account among potential Yorkist rebels / supporters.

I would be interested to hear any explanation for this?

Kind regards

David


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 4 Feb 2015 15:10:14, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote:

Well Perkin was small and George was small, that is according to JAH. :) :) H

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015, 13:43
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

It has always made me curious that only two letters of the alphabet separate Warwick from Warbeck. I know....coincidence. But as with everything about this whole ‘pretenders’ mystery, it is yet another peculiarity about names.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:36 PM

To:

Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Eileen wrote:

“Hi Doug...I was thinking along lines of maybe the real Warwick ,..say George had managed to get him to Ireland ..after being crowned in Dublin ...being so young ..never came over to England with the Yorkist party and thus was never taken after Stow ..who LS was and what was the real identity of the Warwick in the Tower I know not...as usual there are more questions than answers..and where he went to after that....all a mystery...”

Doug here:

If something along the lines of what you’ve conjectured did occur, that might explain Henry’s supposed regrets at having “Warwick” executed along with “Warbeck:” Henry still didn’t know if the person in the Tower was the real Warwick (and possible claimant to the throne) or a boy substituted years earlier by Clarence. Either way, however, Henry still went ahead and executed him, presumably because, as it was a joint escape attempt, whoever the person was, he’d attempted to help someone commit treason by assisting “Warbeck.”

Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

Doug

We also know that few people ever saw the Perkin letters, they may well have been wilfully misquoted and written after torture.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 23 February 2015 16:20
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Thanks Pamela. Like everything it's proving it. Oh for just one letter ...... H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015, 16:15
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Excellent thoughts. I think we have all wondered about the huge swirl of time, place, people and fate which rumbled about the family, especially Richard.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

I can't explain that David but what I am beginning to see is a much wider foreign conspiracy which also embraced Richard and which also explains this so-called evidence.

When I was /still am searching for Carol about Richard's supporters in 1483 I examined my own rather sweeping statement that the Plantagenets were not good at maintaining internal networks because of their foreign marriage policy. I'm happy to say that I confirmed that - what networks they had like the Holands, the Bohuns etc self-extinguished by Richard's time and the Bourchiers were questionable to say the least. But they did succeed in one huge network and that was - the Beauforts. As well as English/Welsh networks MB's aunt was Queen of Scotland, her cousin (although before her time) had been married to Louis XI; another, as you probably know, married Francis of Brittany.

So climb for a moment into the paranoid head of Louis XI. It's taken him years and years to get the wretched English out of France and half a dozen years' later the English get another warrior king. He tries to buy him off by a marriage to his sister-in-law but that doesn't work. In the process, however, he finds out all he needs to know about the brothers Plantagenet from his good friend Warwick. Edward is clever but lazy, George is fragile and unstable, Richard is loyal but boring. He backs Warwick in 1470 but doesn't risk too much and when Edward does a bit of sabre-rattling in 1475 he's already negotiated to buy him off, knowing that Edward is more worried about finances and too lazy to fight.

And then the first shock comes. Loyal, boring little brother says he doesn't agree; he wants to invade France and even Louis's horses and Edward's reprimand can't buy him off. Still, not to worry, he's nowhere in the pecking order. But then in 1483 the unpredictable English throw out a boy king and boring little brother is on the throne. Boring little brother who in the meantime has invaded Scotland and proved himself a fit soldier. To Louis here's another potential Henry V, and this one's more handsome and won't have to rely on French horses getting stuck in the mud! And, having met him, he knows nothing will buy him off.

So he starts the rumour campaign in London - he's learned from the English how to weaken kings by doing that. And then he dies, to be succeeded by his daughter who will prove herself down the line much less adept at foreign policy. She clutches at HT and his band of chip-on-shoulder dispossessed in an attempt to divert Richard even more from anything French. Unfortunately, a bit like the LFR team dare I say, she doesn't put enough effort in thinking what would happen if HT actually won. The worst scenario, no doubt, would be that Richard would be driven into exile like Edward and the quarrels would go on for years whilst he tried to get back. That would keep France - and Scotland - very happen so that they could pursue their own ambitions in Europe without English interferance.

An August day, a charge down the hillside and the unimaginable happens. And the 'upstart' is there to start prodding France again. OK he's no warrior, but he has the formidable Oxford as commander and Daubeney leading the fleet. And down the line, when things become untenable yet again, Richard of York has to rise from the dead and start diversions once more. And all these rumours, which have gathered pace through the years encouraged by Henry, are very useful in destabilising England yet again.

( BTW the cast for 'rescuing' the princes has always been so limited - perhaps because we get diverted by small issues such as keys. I'd throw EW and Louis XI into the melting pot as well).

Phew - sorry this is so long but it makes so much more politcal sense than Buckingham tantrums, MB plots and Hastings executions. Not to say of course that these weren't a gift to Louis. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015, 15:08
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Hilary, Sandra and anyone who commented on the Dublin King / Pretenders thread.

It strikes me that one of the significant facts contained in Arthurson's book is the fact that Perkin Warbeck actually supports the 'traditional' view by accusing Richard of 'seizing' the throne and disinheriting him (as Richard of Shrewsbury) and his brother. The explanation for his survival is that King Richard handed the boys over to a lord to be killed - but after having killed his brother (Edward V) the lord took pity on him and released him under an oath to remain silent.

I think that the letters sent by PW are quite significant as regards the fate af the Princes and (depending on your belief as to his true identity) are either an eyewitness account or represent the most widely believed account among potential Yorkist rebels / supporters.

I would be interested to hear any explanation for this?

Kind regards

David


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 4 Feb 2015 15:10:14, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []'> wrote:

Well Perkin was small and George was small, that is according to JAH. :) :) H

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015, 13:43
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

It has always made me curious that only two letters of the alphabet separate Warwick from Warbeck. I know....coincidence. But as with everything about this whole pretenders' mystery, it is yet another peculiarity about names.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:36 PM

To:

Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Eileen wrote:

Hi Doug...I was thinking along lines of maybe the real Warwick ,..say George had managed to get him to Ireland ..after being crowned in Dublin ...being so young ..never came over to England with the Yorkist party and thus was never taken after Stow ..who LS was and what was the real identity of the Warwick in the Tower I know not...as usual there are more questions than answers..and where he went to after that....all a mystery...

Doug here:

If something along the lines of what you've conjectured did occur, that might explain Henry's supposed regrets at having Warwick executed along with Warbeck: Henry still didn't know if the person in the Tower was the real Warwick (and possible claimant to the throne) or a boy substituted years earlier by Clarence. Either way, however, Henry still went ahead and executed him, presumably because, as it was a joint escape attempt, whoever the person was, he'd attempted to help someone commit treason by assisting Warbeck.

Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

Doug

Richard was, of course, far from York ’s only uncle at Edward IV’s death. Elizabeth Woodville had brothers and her sisters had husbands, such as Buckingham.

Even if York/ “Warbeck” wasn’t protecting his brother by portraying him as dead, or if the erstwhile Edward V hadn’t died of something else anyway, it would have been easier had the letters been in Latin where patruus and avunculus are separate words meaning paternal and maternal uncle respectively. Richard was the former and Buckingham the latter, of course.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 26 February 2015 12:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

As a slight aside from this can I ask one of my daft questions?

The dearth of evidence around Richard's reign and the events leading up to it is usually attributed to Morton junior, alias 'The Shredder'. Now you can understand him shredding things which showed Richard in an advantageous light and those which showed the MB/HT camp in a less favourable light. But why would he shred documents which incriminated Richard? You'd think HT would want to put them in neon on London Bridge or publish them in the Ambassadors' Digest read by all European monarchs on wet Sunday afternoons, because they would significantly prop up the case for his seizure of the throne.

Could it be that there just weren't any incriminating documents about Richard and that those documents that were found, including around Hastings , EW et al were far more damning about the role MB, Bray and some of HT's favourites had played in all this? All HT could encourage to survive was an archaic chronicle written by an anonymous cleric. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015, 12:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Doug,

If I may deal with your points about Perkin Warbeck first. I usually have a number of responses to deal with if i post to the forum...

Arthurson is not quoting from earlier writings, he is quoting from original letters that still exist. In fact, the book has photos of letters as illustrations. There is a sigificant difference in the wording - in Arthurson, the word 'bind' is 'blind'. I am not sure which is correct, but blind makes more sense. This may be a misprint. In the preamble to that sentence he refers to Richard as his 'unnatural uncle'.

The actual account of Richard's ordering their death comes from another letter asking for support from Queen Isabella. The extant letters of Warbeck have been known about for some time - they are mentioned in the Richard III Foundation's web page about PW, but are not quoted in the text.

Kendall is otherwise in agreement with Arthurson in quoting from PW's proclamation. However, he is incorrect in asserting that there is no evidence as to how Warbeck explained his escape and the death of his brother.

Hope this makes sense.

Kind regards

David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 24 Feb 2015 15:28:02, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] '> wrote:

David wrote:

“Hilary, Sandra and anyone who commented on the Dublin King / Pretenders thread.

It strikes me that one of the significant facts contained in Arthurson's book is the fact that Perkin Warbeck actually supports the 'traditional' view by accusing Richard of 'seizing' the throne and disinheriting him (as Richard of Shrewsbury) and his brother. The explanation for his survival is that King Richard handed the boys over to a lord to be killed - but after having killed his brother (Edward V) the lord took pity on him and released him under an oath to remain silent.

I think that the letters sent by PW are quite significant as regards the fate af the Princes and (depending on your belief as to his true identity) are either an eyewitness account or represent the most widely believed account among potential Yorkist rebels / supporters.

I would be interested to hear any explanation for this?”

Doug here:

All I can find right now are the following two paragraphs from Audrey Williamson’s ‘The Mystery of the Princes’:

“ “Lord Bacon”, writes Gairdner, it is true not without that skepticism he normally deplores in history writing12 “assures us that she (Margaret of Burgundy- DS) instructed him carefully in the family history of Edward IV, and in everything that concerned the Duke of York (italics Williamson’s), as well as “the personages, lineaments, and features of of the king and queen, his pretended parents; and of his brother and sisters, and divers others that were nearest to him in childhood, together with all passages, some secret, some common, that were fit for a child’s memory, until the death of King Edward”. She also “told him all about the death of his father King Edward IV, his own imprisonment with his brother in the Tower, the murder of the latter, and his own escape”. Truly a formidable lady, of pronounced psychic powers.”

The above is immediately followed by:

“It is unclear exactly what story Warbeck told about this escape, and if he really did claim his elder brother was murdered by Richard or anyone else. Kendall quotes him as declaring in a proclamation that “though desire of rule did bind [King Richard], yet, in his other actions, he was noble, and loved the honour of the realm, and the contentment and comfort of his nobles and people”.13

12 Gairdner, pp 329-330

13 Richard iii, p. 319

I haven’t read Arthurson’s book, so I don’t know what the source/s for the statement that the boy “were handed over to a lord for killing”, but it sounds suspiciously as if the source might be Bacon (whose reliability I can’t comment on).

On the other hand, the proclamation in Gairdner cited by Williamson, especially phrasing the proclamation the way, it seemingly had been, would allow supporters of Richard to also support his nephew’s attempt to reclaim the crown for the Yorkists; ie, Richard had been misled about Edward IV’s marriage to Eleanor Butler and really believed he was the rightful king. Thus it was from the (mis)belief about being the rightful her, and not from any particularly base motive/s that Richard had acted, what with that phrase “though desire of rule did bind [King Richard], leaving open a very latitudinarian interpretation.

After all, if the whole idea of dislodging Henry from a throne the Yorkists believed he shouldn’t be sitting on, then the more supporters for that action the better.

Doug

Richard was, of course, far from York 's only uncle at Edward IV's death. Elizabeth Woodville had brothers and her sisters had husbands, such as Buckingham.

Even if York/ Warbeck wasn't protecting his brother by portraying him as dead, or if the erstwhile Edward V hadn't died of something else anyway, it would have been easier had the letters been in Latin where patruus and avunculus are separate words meaning paternal and maternal uncle respectively. Richard was the former and Buckingham the latter, of course.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 26 February 2015 12:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

As a slight aside from this can I ask one of my daft questions?

The dearth of evidence around Richard's reign and the events leading up to it is usually attributed to Morton junior, alias 'The Shredder'. Now you can understand him shredding things which showed Richard in an advantageous light and those which showed the MB/HT camp in a less favourable light. But why would he shred documents which incriminated Richard? You'd think HT would want to put them in neon on London Bridge or publish them in the Ambassadors' Digest read by all European monarchs on wet Sunday afternoons, because they would significantly prop up the case for his seizure of the throne.

Could it be that there just weren't any incriminating documents about Richard and that those documents that were found, including around Hastings , EW et al were far more damning about the role MB, Bray and some of HT's favourites had played in all this? All HT could encourage to survive was an archaic chronicle written by an anonymous cleric. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015, 12:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Doug,

If I may deal with your points about Perkin Warbeck first. I usually have a number of responses to deal with if i post to the forum...

Arthurson is not quoting from earlier writings, he is quoting from original letters that still exist. In fact, the book has photos of letters as illustrations. There is a sigificant difference in the wording - in Arthurson, the word 'bind' is 'blind'. I am not sure which is correct, but blind makes more sense. This may be a misprint. In the preamble to that sentence he refers to Richard as his 'unnatural uncle'.

The actual account of Richard's ordering their death comes from another letter asking for support from Queen Isabella. The extant letters of Warbeck have been known about for some time - they are mentioned in the Richard III Foundation's web page about PW, but are not quoted in the text.

Kendall is otherwise in agreement with Arthurson in quoting from PW's proclamation. However, he is incorrect in asserting that there is no evidence as to how Warbeck explained his escape and the death of his brother.

Hope this makes sense.

Kind regards

David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 24 Feb 2015 15:28:02, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] '> wrote:

David wrote:

Hilary, Sandra and anyone who commented on the Dublin King / Pretenders thread.

It strikes me that one of the significant facts contained in Arthurson's book is the fact that Perkin Warbeck actually supports the 'traditional' view by accusing Richard of 'seizing' the throne and disinheriting him (as Richard of Shrewsbury) and his brother. The explanation for his survival is that King Richard handed the boys over to a lord to be killed - but after having killed his brother (Edward V) the lord took pity on him and released him under an oath to remain silent.

I think that the letters sent by PW are quite significant as regards the fate af the Princes and (depending on your belief as to his true identity) are either an eyewitness account or represent the most widely believed account among potential Yorkist rebels / supporters.

I would be interested to hear any explanation for this?

Doug here:

All I can find right now are the following two paragraphs from Audrey Williamson's The Mystery of the Princes':

 Lord Bacon, writes Gairdner, it is true not without that skepticism he normally deplores in history writing12 assures us that she (Margaret of Burgundy- DS) instructed him carefully in the family history of Edward IV, and in everything that concerned the Duke of York (italics Williamson's), as well as the personages, lineaments, and features of of the king and queen, his pretended parents; and of his brother and sisters, and divers others that were nearest to him in childhood, together with all passages, some secret, some common, that were fit for a child's memory, until the death of King Edward. She also told him all about the death of his father King Edward IV, his own imprisonment with his brother in the Tower, the murder of the latter, and his own escape. Truly a formidable lady, of pronounced psychic powers.

The above is immediately followed by:

It is unclear exactly what story Warbeck told about this escape, and if he really did claim his elder brother was murdered by Richard or anyone else. Kendall quotes him as declaring in a proclamation that though desire of rule did bind [King Richard], yet, in his other actions, he was noble, and loved the honour of the realm, and the contentment and comfort of his nobles and people.13

12 Gairdner, pp 329-330

13 Richard iii, p. 319

I haven't read Arthurson's book, so I don't know what the source/s for the statement that the boy were handed over to a lord for killing, but it sounds suspiciously as if the source might be Bacon (whose reliability I can't comment on).

On the other hand, the proclamation in Gairdner cited by Williamson, especially phrasing the proclamation the way, it seemingly had been, would allow supporters of Richard to also support his nephew's attempt to reclaim the crown for the Yorkists; ie, Richard had been misled about Edward IV's marriage to Eleanor Butler and really believed he was the rightful king. Thus it was from the (mis)belief about being the rightful her, and not from any particularly base motive/s that Richard had acted, what with that phrase though desire of rule did bind [King Richard], leaving open a very latitudinarian interpretation.

After all, if the whole idea of dislodging Henry from a throne the Yorkists believed he shouldn't be sitting on, then the more supporters for that action the better.

Doug

Stephen wrote :

We also know that few people ever saw the Perkin letters, they may well have been wilfully misquoted and written after torture.

Carol responds:

Exactly. I thought that the forced confession and Polydore Vergil's alterations had been firmly established. Marie or anyone with the facts at hand?

Carol

Stephen wrote :

We also know that few people ever saw the Perkin letters, they may well have been wilfully misquoted and written after torture.

Carol responds:

Exactly. I thought that the forced confession and Polydore Vergil's alterations had been firmly established. Marie or anyone with the facts at hand?

Carol

Stephen wrote :

We also know that few people ever saw the Perkin letters, they may well have been wilfully misquoted and written after torture.

Carol responds:

Exactly. I thought that the forced confession and Polydore Vergil's alterations had been firmly established. Marie or anyone with the facts at hand?

Carol

Hi David,

I'm a bit late here. I think there is some confusion between the different statements of Perkin. Perkin's letter to Isabella is in Latin and makes no direct mention of Richard III. Nor does his proclamation. The reference to Richard having murdered Eddward V and sought to murder RdoY comes ultimately from Speed's imagined speech by Perkin to King James of Scotland in his 'Historie of Great Britaine'; Speed follows this almost directly with part of the text of the proclamation, which was genuine, having been copied from Sir Robert Cotton's transcription of the original MS. Bacon copied Speed, adding yet a bit more text of his own - crucially he made up the first part of the contents of the proclamation, which Speed had omitted, rather than takig the trouble to get a look at Cotton's transcription, and the phrases "unnatural uncle" and "desire of rule did blind him" belong to this opening passage of the proclamation invented by Bacon.

So, in a nutshell, all the damning references Perkin makes to Richard III in Speed and Bacon are of Speed and Bacon's own invention. Perkin and Margaret did recount the story of the lord killing Edward V and sparing Richard DoY but never brought Richard III's name into their account. You can make of that what you like.

The actual text of the proclamation can be seen here:-

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3SMsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA387&lpg=PA387&dq=perkin+warbeck%27s+proclamation&source=bl&ots=-MkrldUg5x&sig=AJMbfXCtJjwivy42KfIlsmZQ3pA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MV7yVLvMCISY7gaa2YD4Dw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=perkin%20warbeck%27s%20proclamation&f=false

Couple of things Doug - as usual we broadly agree, just say things in different ways. I don't think there was anything wrong with the Plantagenet marriage policy - everyone in Europe did the same. I do think they were unlucky though, because apart from Edward III, few had enough other children to integrate with the English nobility and the lines of those that did died out through the years. Also the old Norman baronial lines which had traditionally propped up the monarch - the de Burghs, de Toenis etc etc also faded by the 14th century. And of course when you look at who Richard could turn to (which I'm doing at the moment) there is a huge hole left by Warwick, Montagu and Hastings. Trouble was, even the northern families were marrying into the opposition - Ralph Neville's family had been so large that it also embraced the de Veres and the Fitzalans. Northumberland's daughter was married to a Fitzalan, his son to a Spencer. His wife was a Herbert. Like you, I don't think Louis XI would have mounted a rescue mission for the princes. That wasn't how he worked, but there was enough dissention around from vain, ambitious and frankly mad folk at the time to stir beneath the surface, to encourage and even clandestinely help. He had spies everywhere as we know. Finally, a few days' ago Paul talked about the selfishness of the Stanleys, and of course he was right. But I reckon by Richard's time everyone was going the same way. One of the upsetting parts of my bits of work is noticing the large number of Richard's contemporaries, from whatever persuasion, who survived well into the sixteenth century and died wealthily in their beds. They might have read 'Morte d'Arthur' but they didn't want to be him (that is except Richard). Thundering about the countryside dressed like Ned Kelly was far less appealing than marrying an heiress, having a flutter on the wool trade and getting a JP's pension for life. If you wanted to show off your warrior skills a joust was much more preferable. And loyalties came a very long way down the list - unless of course it affected your lands or your wealth. So in that respect Richard was born much too late. The modern age didn't begin with the Tudors as we're told; it was rumbling on through the fifteenth century and was a gift to plotters like MB and Louis. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 15:16
Subject: Re: The Dublin King

Hilary wrote:
I can't explain that David but what I am beginning to see is a much wider foreign conspiracy which also embraced Richard and which also explains this so-called evidence. When I was /still am searching for Carol about Richard's supporters in 1483 I examined my own rather sweeping statement that the Plantagenets were not good at maintaining internal networks because of their foreign marriage policy. I'm happy to say that I confirmed that - what networks they had like the Holands, the Bohuns etc self-extinguished by Richard's time and the Bourchiers were questionable to say the least. But they did succeed in one huge network and that was - the Beauforts. As well as English/Welsh networks MB's aunt was Queen of Scotland, her cousin (although before her time) had been married to Louis XI; another, as you probably know, married Francis of Brittany. Doug here: Could it be that the Plantagenet marriage policy,which was well-fitted to maintain the Angevin empire established by Henry II, had simply out-lived its' usefulness and its later practitioners didn't, or wouldn't, recognize that fact? After all, marriage to a Princess is just another demonstration of the innate regality of the person marrying her, isn't it? And really, why should a King bestow himself on a mere commoner, even if that commoner is one of his citizens (and thus much above those foreign commoners)? The above is a little bit snarky, but does, I think represent a very likely reason for the foreign marriage policies of so many Plantagenet monarchs. Two other things might also be worth considering: a marriage to a native-born female would necessitate providing places and titles commensurate (always wanted to use that word!) with their new-found position/s as Royal In-laws (think Woodvilles and Beauforts). Secondly, and probably more importantly, such a marriage would, um, irk(?) all those not chosen. And their families,, which as you've pointed out, would likely be inter-locked with an awful lot of other families. Perhaps then, the Plantagent policy of foreign, Royal marriages might be viewed as being the least troublesome domestically, while having, potentially anyway, a good chance of providing a possible ally in foreign matters? Hilary continued So climb for a moment into the paranoid head of Louis XI. It's taken him years and years to get the wretched English out of France and half a dozen years' later the English get another warrior king. He tries to buy him off by a marriage to his sister-in-law but that doesn't work. In the process, however, he finds out all he needs to know about the brothers Plantagenet from his good friend Warwick. Edward is clever but lazy, George is fragile and unstable, Richard is loyal but boring. He backs Warwick in 1470 but doesn't risk too much and when Edward does a bit of sabre-rattling in 1475 he's already negotiated to buy him off, knowing that Edward is more worried about finances and too lazy to fight. And then the first shock comes. Loyal, boring little brother says he doesn't agree; he wants to invade France and even Louis's horses and Edward's reprimand can't buy him off. Still, not to worry, he's nowhere in the pecking order. But then in 1483 the unpredictable English throw out a boy king and boring little brother is on the throne. Boring little brother who in the meantime has invaded Scotland and proved himself a fit soldier. To Louis here's another potential Henry V, and this one's more handsome and won't have to rely on French horses getting stuck in the mud! And, having met him, he knows nothing will buy him off. So he starts the rumour campaign in London - he's learned from the English how to weaken kings by doing that. And then he dies, to be succeeded by his daughter who will prove herself down the line much less adept at foreign policy. She clutches at HT and his band of chip-on-shoulder dispossessed in an attempt to divert Richard even more from anything French. Unfortunately, a bit like the LFR team dare I say, she doesn't put enough effort in thinking what would happen if HT actually won. The worst scenario, no doubt, would be that Richard would be driven into exile like Edward and the quarrels would go on for years whilst he tried to get back. That would keep France - and Scotland - very happen so that they could pursue their own ambitions in Europe without English interferance. Doug again: I fully agree with your ideas of what was behind the French support of Tudor: Henry was to provide a distraction that would prevent Richard from initiating any military actions against France. Likely Louis presumption, and afterwards Anne's, was that Richard would defeat Henry, but be tied down dealing with all those who'd been attainted for their support of Tudor. The only problem, for Louis and his successors anyway, would be if Richard realized that one way of remaking Henry's erstwhile supporters into loyal supporters of himself might be a resumption of the war with France... Hilary concluded: An August day, a charge down the hillside and the unimaginable happens. And the 'upstart' is there to start prodding France again. OK he's no warrior, but he has the formidable Oxford as commander and Daubeney leading the fleet. And down the line, when things become untenable yet again, Richard of York has to rise from the dead and start diversions once more. And all these rumours, which have gathered pace through the years encouraged by Henry, are very useful in destabilising England yet again. ( BTW the cast for 'rescuing' the princes has always been so limited - perhaps because we get diverted by small issues such as keys. I'd throw EW and Louis XI into the melting pot as well). Phew - sorry this is so long but it makes so much more politcal sense than Buckingham tantrums, MB plots and Hastings executions. Not to say of course that these weren't a gift to Louis. Doug here: Exactly! H by their own P as Bertie might say. (One could switch Richard and Henry in my last sentence and that would sum up the problem the French faced after Bosworth  hah!) As for potential rescuers of the Princes, I've always included EW, but as a supporter of Buckingham's Rebellion  especially considering EW's possible (probable?) dealings with MB over a marriage between HT and EoY in order to gain the latter's support in returning Edward V to the throne. I really can't see Louis messing around with trying to spirit the boys out of England (and of what value were they dead?), especially in 1483, when everything was still in flux; what with the effects of rebellion and its accompanying attainders holding Richard's attention and dividing the country. Once things had settled down in England, Louis' successors could, and did, keep the pot boiling by his off and on support of Henry. Then, after Henry's victory at Bosworth, I can easily see that Anne might want the same conditions to prevail but, because of Margaret of Burgundy's activities, had no need to actively involve France. Why expend French money and influence destabilizing England, when Burgundy was doing such a fine job? Personally, I view Buckingham's actions, not as tantrums, but rather the actions of someone who's been denied what he considered his rightful place in governing the realm and had found a means to place himself where he believed he belonged. If that meant inciting a rebellion, and possibly conniving in the deaths of the two children for whom the rebellion was, supposedly in support of, no matter. Can't get much more political than that! (Apologies for the delay in responding  I type much as I speak, but typing doesn't allow for expressions and tones of voice, so I have to do a bit of editing to prevent sending something that might not read the way it's meant) Doug who does believe, however, that more attention should definitely be paid to foreign influences

David wrote:

"Thank you for the link. I read more of the book it is very interesting. It is difficult to see that the quoted passages are from the same proclamation. Having checked up in Arthurson, he seems to be quoting from a book by Diane Kleyn for that part of the 'failure' chapter. The section from Kendall that Doug quoted also seems to match the Arthurson word for word. [snip] Having read the book further, the author treats the great Bacon more kindly than you and credits Bacon with having more information available to him that has been lost - rather than simply accusing him of making it up."

Marie:

I am not treating Bacon any less kindly than Spedding, who published the compendium of his works. I'm afraid there was only one proclamation, at that time in the hands of Sir Robert Cotton, whose transcript of it is still extant (though the original is not) and is reproduced in the link I gave in my last post.

Bacon's version is given in his 'Henry VII', and if an author accesses that as a discrete volume rather than in Spedding's compendium then he/she will be unaware of its inaccuracy. Diana Kleyn is not a professional historian; I don't have a copy of her book, though I have read it - other members may have - so I can't tell you what source she used for the proclamation, but it was less than scholarly of Arthurson to rely on her version, if that is what he did. I've just checked Ann Wroe (who I recall observes in her book that neither Margaret nor the boy ever openly directed blame against Richard III), and she used the original MS and Spedding.

Here's a link to Spedding's Bacon (vol XI) - he gives his explanation of what Bacon did with the proclamation in note 2:-

https://archive.org/stream/worksofbacon11bacoiala#page/n255/mode/2up

I think it's obvious why Perkin would not have gone round saying a lot of nasty things about Richard - if he wanted any chance of success he had to appeal to Richard's old supporters as well as those Yorkists who had opposed him. Probably for the same reason, he doesn't even name the lord who nearly killed him, although he does let slip that he was his godfather (he needed to, to give a motive for this lord having spared him and not his brother) and other sources suggest this was Buckingham.

David wrote:

"Thank you for the link. I read more of the book it is very interesting. It is difficult to see that the quoted passages are from the same proclamation. Having checked up in Arthurson, he seems to be quoting from a book by Diane Kleyn for that part of the 'failure' chapter. The section from Kendall that Doug quoted also seems to match the Arthurson word for word. [snip] Having read the book further, the author treats the great Bacon more kindly than you and credits Bacon with having more information available to him that has been lost - rather than simply accusing him of making it up."

Marie:

I am not treating Bacon any less kindly than Spedding, who published the compendium of his works. I'm afraid there was only one proclamation, at that time in the hands of Sir Robert Cotton, whose transcript of it is still extant (though the original is not) and is reproduced in the link I gave in my last post.

Bacon's version is given in his 'Henry VII', and if an author accesses that as a discrete volume rather than in Spedding's compendium then he/she will be unaware of its inaccuracy. Diana Kleyn is not a professional historian; I don't have a copy of her book, though I have read it - other members may have - so I can't tell you what source she used for the proclamation, but it was less than scholarly of Arthurson to rely on her version, if that is what he did. I've just checked Ann Wroe (who I recall observes in her book that neither Margaret nor the boy ever openly directed blame against Richard III), and she used the original MS and Spedding.

Here's a link to Spedding's Bacon (vol XI) - he gives his explanation of what Bacon did with the proclamation in note 2:-

https://archive.org/stream/worksofbacon11bacoiala#page/n255/mode/2up

I think it's obvious why Perkin would not have gone round saying a lot of nasty things about Richard - if he wanted any chance of success he had to appeal to Richard's old supporters as well as those Yorkists who had opposed him. Probably for the same reason, he doesn't even name the lord who nearly killed him, although he does let slip that he was his godfather (he needed to, to give a motive for this lord having spared him and not his brother) and other sources suggest this was Buckingham.

Thank David.

That's Bishop Leslie, 1527-1596, I take it.

Yet more of the invented speeches you get in 16th century humanist histories, no?

Marie

Perhaps it was the result of a séance?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 13 March 2015 15:42
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Thank David.

That's Bishop Leslie, 1527-1596, I take it.

Yet more of the invented speeches you get in 16th century humanist histories, no?

Marie

Perhaps it was the result of a séance?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 13 March 2015 15:42
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] The Dublin King

Thank David.

That's Bishop Leslie, 1527-1596, I take it.

Yet more of the invented speeches you get in 16th century humanist histories, no?

Marie

Hi David,

Firstly, what Spedding actually says about Bacon & Speed's sources for Perkin's speech is:

"It is not to be supposed that there is any authentic report of Perkin's speech to the Scotch king, except for the general tenor and effect of it. The speech which is given here [ie in Bacon's HVII] is taken almost entirely from Speed, who seems to have made it up partly from Perkin's Proclamation (to be mentioned presently) and partly from the narrative of John Leslie Bishop of Rosse; with a touch here and there taken from Polydore Vergil."

All Bishop Leslie gives of Perkin's speech is a third person account of the contents, and the bit relating to his escape just says "....he declarit unto the king the cause of his cuming, and how he had bene preserved furth of the handis of Richarde Duik of Glocester, his father broder, and bene favourablie interteynit with Charles Duik of France [sic] and the saide Dutches." Since he doesn't quote the speech verbatim there is no reason to suppose he had the authentic text of it. In fact, he seems to have confused Charles of Burgundy with Charles VIII of France.

The first person to bring up the supposed speech of Perkin to King James was Polydore Vergil. This is how Polydore imagines Perkin's account of his escape (in Dana Sutton's translation):

"I do not think, great king, that it escapes you what a bane has fallen on the house of Edward IV King of England these past years. In case you are unaware, I am his son, rescued from murder by the will of God Almighty. For when on his deathbed Edward my father appointed his brother Duke Richard of Gloucester guardian of his sons, whom he hoped would love his sons all the more in return for great benefits he had received. But (alas, unhappy me) how it turned out otherwise than he had expected! For he was not the guardian of our family, but all but its destroyer. Behold, this tyrant, unexpectedly overcome by greed for power ordered the death of my brother Edward and myself. The man assigned the monstrous and horrible task of killing us poor innocents, the more he shuddered at this crime, the more he feared not to do it. Therefore, being of doubtful mind, so that he would both satisfy the tyrant and be free of guilt, at least in part, murdered my brother but spared me and gave me to a confederate to take to another country on the Continent and abandon in some far-flung land. Thus Richard obtained the throne, as the prize of his crimes. But I, thus rescued, almost completely forgot who I was because of my young years, and wandered through various nations, until I was taught my true identity and came to my aunt Margaret, the widow of Duke Charles of Burgundy, who very joyfully took me in, thus brought back to life."

Vergil didn't visit Scotland so far as I am aware and so must have made all this up. Having Perkin point the finger of blame squarely at Richard was what the Tudor regime wanted, of course, but it's just what you don't see in the extant documents. It's not in Perkin's proclamation, not in the correspondence with Isabella, not in Margaret of Burgundy's plea to the Pope. Ergo, I submit, it is highly unlikely that it was in Perkin's address to the King of Scots.

And surely Leslie was drawing on Vergil? The interesting thing is how Leslie and Speed both tone down Vergil's hyperbole, as though they didn't really credit it.

Marie

Just got this one. Interesting fact brought out. On Sept 23 1483, a Requiem was held by the Pope in Rome for King Edward. It was the custom to offer these masses on the yearly or monthly anniversary of a death. Since Edward IV died at the beginning of April the t couldn't be for him. No mass for Richard. Edward died perhaps July 23 1483. Why no grave? Is all records of it destroyed? Did Buckingham kill one son and kidnap the other or did Edward did of natural causes? Fascinating.

Here's my thinking about this one. This seems to be a unique example of a mass held (possibly) for Edward V. If there had been any in England, surely Henry Tudor's minions would have found them out & used them as definitive evidence of the fate of the princes.

So this represents either the result of the transmission of wrong information through diplomatic channels (as is seen in so many of the surviving letters) or deliberate mis-information, or even a very delayed reaction to the death of Edward IV. Do we, for instance, know that there were masses said any earlier that can be clearly identified as being given for that king?

A J



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 

Just got this one. Interesting fact brought out. On Sept 23 1483, a Requiem was held by the Pope in Rome for King Edward. It was the custom to offer these masses on the yearly or monthly anniversary of a death. Since Edward IV died at the beginning of April the t couldn't be for him. No mass for Richard. Edward died perhaps July 23 1483. Why no grave? Is all records of it destroyed? Did Buckingham kill one son and kidnap the other or did Edward did of natural causes? Fascinating.

It could not be a delayed reaction to Edward IV death b cause the date of the mass is the 23 of the month and Edward died at the beginning of April. Masses were offered on monthly anniversaries of deaths. So you think the Pope was lied to. Why then no mention of his brother Richard? Surely if both were dead wouldn't they want this advertised? Even if a lie both boys would have to be included. This is why I think it's true. Edward was being treated for something by his doctor and was preparing himself for death.
On Aug 4, 2017 12:49 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:

Here's my thinking about this one. This seems to be a unique example of a mass held (possibly) for Edward V. If there had been any in England, surely Henry Tudor's minions would have found them out & used them as definitive evidence of the fate of the princes.

So this represents either the result of the transmission of wrong information through diplomatic channels (as is seen in so many of the surviving letters) or deliberate mis-information, or even a very delayed reaction to the death of Edward IV. Do we, for instance, know that there were masses said any earlier that can be clearly identified as being given for that king?

A J



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

Just got this one. Interesting fact brought out. On Sept 23 1483, a Requiem was held by the Pope in Rome for King Edward. It was the custom to offer these masses on the yearly or monthly anniversary of a death. Since Edward IV died at the beginning of April the t couldn't be for him. No mass for Richard. Edward died perhaps July 23 1483. Why no grave? Is all records of it destroyed? Did Buckingham kill one son and kidnap the other or did Edward did of natural causes? Fascinating.

The new Sistine Chapel was not consecrated until 15th of August 1483 so could that be the reason that the mass for Edward IV was delayed.
Mary

Hi,
I just caught up on this interesting thread. Karen, which section of the J-AH book is it mentioned in?

If this was for Edward V, then it would point to him dying during the 'rescue attempt' on July 23. There was also an article where J-AH found a reference in a Colchester archive about the 'late' Kind Edward V, which he interpreted as a suggestion that he was dead.
It isn't strictly necessary to hold a memorial mass on the anniversary (either month or year) of someone's death, although many people prefer to. I don't know if there were different rules for medieval royalty; perhaps Marie would know something about what the customs were for them. Some questions I would have about the mass being for Edward V, would be:
- Who arranged it, and why is there no record of any official from England attending or other masses said in England?
- Edward V could not have been dead for long, so what happened to the body? Generally, there is a funeral mass with the body present followed by burial before other masses are said. Surely questions must have been asked in Rome and there would have been more talk about what happened to him and where he had been buried.

- Edward's deposition due to illegitimacy was never challenged by Rome, nor was Richard's coronation. Would it have been appropriate for Edward V be commemorated in a ceremony exclusive to Kings and Emperors, if he had never actually had the right to be a King. Surely, to do so could have been seen as inflammatory by Richard.
Since the Sistine Chapel had only recently been consecrated, I suspect it was the earliest possible date for Edward IV, but I would love to know more about this.
Nico

Hi,
I just caught up on this interesting thread.   Karen, which section of the J-AH book is it mentioned in?

If this was for Edward V, then it would point to him dying during the 'rescue attempt' on July 23.  There was also an article where J-AH found a reference in a Colchester archive about the 'late' Kind Edward V, which he interpreted as a suggestion that he was dead.
It isn't strictly necessary to hold a memorial mass on the anniversary (either month or year) of someone's death, although many people prefer to.  I don't know if there were different rules for medieval royalty; perhaps Marie would know something about what the customs were for them.   Some questions I would have about the mass being for Edward V, would be:
- Who arranged it, and why is there no record of any official from England attending or other masses said in England?
- Edward V could not have been dead for long, so what happened to the body?  Generally, there is a funeral mass with the body present followed by burial before other masses are said.  Surely questions must have been asked in Rome and there would have been more talk about what happened to him and where he had been buried.

- Edward's deposition due to illegitimacy was never challenged by Rome, nor was Richard's coronation. Would it have been appropriate for Edward V be commemorated in a ceremony exclusive to Kings and Emperors, if he had never actually had the right to be a King.  Surely, to do so could have been seen as inflammatory by Richard.
Since the Sistine Chapel had only recently been consecrated, I suspect it was the earliest possible date for Edward IV, but I would love to know more about this.
Nico

Karen wrote:

"Ahhh! John did not mention that. Seems odd to delay for that reason though. So you believe it was for Edward IV?"

Carol responds:

I'm not Mary, but I certainly believe it was for Edward IV and my even have been at Richard's request. He was, I believe, on good terms with Pope Sixtus IV (who had received a letter from Edward praising Richard for defeating the Scots and corresponded with Richard himself regarding Richard's nephew, Edward de la Pole, who had been trained for the priesthood from an early age). There may have been other correspondence; I seem to recall Sixtus expressing real admiration for Richard in the Vatican correspondence. Langton, whom Richard sent to the Vatican, would have given Sixtus glowing reports of Richard--certainly nothing about the supposed death of the uncrowned Edward V, whom Richard had displaced. It was Innocent (or not so innocent--he was a supporter of the Inquisition and the burning of witches of both sexes) VIII, his successor, who would have heard Morton's hostile views of Richard, but that was long after the requiem mass in question.

Unfortunately for Richard, Sixtus died at age seventy in August 1484, supposedly of physical and mental exhaustion--yet another person friendly to Richard who didn't survive into Henry's reign.

Carol