John Ashdown Hill

Anyone read John's new book on The Wars of the Roses?
Wonder if it's worth getting.
Paul

Hopefully it is Paul...I have it but as its a Christmas gift I cannot read if yet...also have Matthew Lewis' Wars of the Roses...also a Christmas gift,
I'm reading at present David Macgibbons Elizabeth Woodville...who makes her sound like a medieval Mother Theresa...
Eileen

Giving it to yourself? Not heard of Matthew Lewis before.Saint Elizabeth W? Very hard to believe!
Paul
On 23 Nov 2015, at 10:20, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


Hopefully it is Paul...I have it but as its a Christmas gift I cannot read if yet...also have Matthew Lewis' Wars of the Roses...also a Christmas gift,
I'm reading at present David Macgibbons Elizabeth Woodville...who makes her sound like a medieval Mother Theresa...
Eileen

No Paul .. I generously ordered them on behalf of my husband to give them to me for Crimbo...I don't like surprises...!
Matthew Lewis is an author who also does a very interesting blog.."Matt's History Blog" ...Eileen

My copy just arrived so I'll let you know what I think. He declines using any portraits of Richard which is odd.Hey ho! We shall see, but have so much on the go at present, including two hefty volumes on Ancient Rome, I don't know when I will fit it in!Couple of train journeys before Christmas, including one to Paris, [opera] so may take it with me.Paul
On 23 Nov 2015, at 17:35, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


No Paul .. I generously ordered them on behalf of my husband to give them to me for Crimbo...I don't like surprises...!
Matthew Lewis is an author who also does a very interesting blog.."Matt's History Blog" ...Eileen

Perhaps there is a very high charge for using the portraits

"The Wars of the Roses" by Ashdown-Hill "The Wars of the Roses" by Ashdown-Hill This new book looks at the characters, motivations, events and nomenclature of the Wars of the Roses, as we now know them. It confronts the great cliche that t... View on murreyandblue.wor... Preview by Yahoo

Considering that Richard (and Edward IV) were descended from Llewellyn Fawr through his daughter, they could also have claimed descent from Brutus (as their nephew John of Lincoln did). Tudor was only descended from Llewellyn's steward, Ednyved ap Something or Other rather than Llewellyn himself. It's surprising that they didn't make that claim and rub Tudor's nose in it. He was only one quarter Welsh in any case (half English, one quarter Welsh, one quarter French).

Carol

Meant to name Llewellyn Fawr's daughter, Gwladys, the one who married a Mortimer. C.

It was Ednyfed Fychan who was Llewllyn's Steward. Fychan then became became Vaughan and as a family they appear to have done quite well under the Tudors
If JAH is right about Edmund Beaufort being Edmund "Tudor's" father then H7 was not Welsh at all and it was the Beaufort Dynasty not Tudor.
When I do any research on my family tree I worry that I might come across a Vaughan or a Thomas. At present I have not come across either name.
Good to have you back on the Forum Carol.
Mary

We seem to have got mixed up here, else I've not received some of the mails as I don't know what this has to do with John's new book on the WOTR.Paul
On 6 Dec 2015, at 19:05, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


It was Ednyfed Fychan who was Llewllyn's Steward. Fychan then became became Vaughan and as a family they appear to have done quite well under the Tudors
If JAH is right about Edmund Beaufort being Edmund "Tudor's" father then H7 was not Welsh at all and it was the Beaufort Dynasty not Tudor.
When I do any research on my family tree I worry that I might come across a Vaughan or a Thomas. At present I have not come across either name.
Good to have you back on the Forum Carol.
Mary

Carol,Apologies for the shortened previous message. My mail system is playing up after just getting an internet connection back. You may have noticed that Northern England has had some adverse weather.
I wanted to point out that it is true Richard is descended from Llewelyn and Henry from the steward, but it is not true that Henry was not descended from Llewelyn.
In fact, based on the usually accepted lines - by that I mean, ignoring any imagined false paternity events, Henry was descended from Llewelyn the Great through both his father and his mother.
Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

On Sunday, December 6, 2015, 16:35, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Considering that Richard (and Edward IV) were descended from Llewellyn Fawr through his daughter, they could also have claimed descent from Brutus (as their nephew John of Lincoln did). Tudor was only descended from Llewellyn's steward, Ednyved ap Something or Other rather than Llewellyn himself. It's surprising that they didn't make that claim and rub Tudor's nose in it. He was only one quarter Welsh in any case (half English, one quarter Welsh, one quarter French).

Carol

Apparently not - not even a dead Queen or unborn Bishop.

Hi,I was a little puzzled by Stephen's post (nothing new there) and then I realized I had only replied to Marie. So here is my version of Henry's 4-fold descent from Llewelyn.
Hi Marie,
I will try - Edmund Tudor line 1Llewelyn the great, prince of Aberffraw 1173-1240 |Grufydd of Gwynedd|Llywelyn the Last, Prince of Gwynedd 1206-1282 |Kaline of Gwynedd 1280 |Eleanor of Cardigan|Margaret of Iscoed|Maredudd ap Tudur|Owen Tudor ca 1400-1461 |Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond ca 1430-1456
Line 2
Llewelyn the great, prince of Aberffraw 1173-1240 |Angharad |Eleanor ferch Maelgwn Fychan|Owain ap Maredudd +1275 |Llewelyn ap Owain +1309 |Thomas ap Llewelyn, Lord of Iscoed /1305 |Margaret of Iscoed |Maredudd ap Tudur|Owen Tudor ca 1400-1461 |Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond ca 1430-1456
Margaret Beaufort - Line 1Llewelyn the Great, prince of Aberffraw 1173-1240 |Elen of Gwynedd +1253 |Hawise de Quincy ca 1250-ca 1295 |John Wake, Baron Wake de Liddell 1268-1300 |Margaret Wake, Baroness Wake of Liddell ca 1299-1349 |Joan Plantagenet , Princess of Wales 1328-1385 |Thomas Holand, Earl of Kent 1350-1397 |Margaret Holland 1385|John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset /1404-1444 |Margaret Beaufort 1443-1509

Margaret Beaufort line 2Llewelyn the great, prince of Aberffraw 1173-1240 |Gwladus the dark +1251 |Roger Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore 1232-1282 |Isabel Mortimer|Richard FitzAlan , Earl of Arundel 1267-1302 |Edmund FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel 1285-1326 |Richard FitzAlan , Earl of Arundel 1306-1376 |Alice FitzAlan, Lady of Arundel 1352-1416 |Margaret Holland|John Beaufort Duke of Somerset /1404-1444 |Margaret Beaufort 1443-1509

The daughter Kaline Catherine or Kalina is rather obscure, but the information seems to originate in Burke.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 21:38, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Apparently not - not even a dead Queen or unborn Bishop.

As far as I am aware Llewellyn ap Gruffydd only had one child. Her name was Gwenllian and her mother was Eleanor de Montfort. Eleanor died in childbirth and not long afterwards Llewellyn was murdered by Edward I's troops. Edward had Gwenllian placed in a nunnery in Sempringham, which I think is in Lincolnshire. She died there aged 54, never knowing who she was. I suppose that he may well have had illegitimate children though there does not seem to be any evidence.
Mary

-Mary wrote :

"It was Ednyfed Fychan who was Llewllyn's Steward. Fychan then became became Vaughan and as a family they appear to have done quite well under the Tudors. [snip] Good to have you back on the Forum Carol"

Carol:

Thanks. I was too lazy to look up.Fychan. Didn't know about the Vaughan part. Interesting given Richard's connections with the various Vaughans, not all of whom were opposed to him.

I've been sidetracked on my own genealogy, which is the main reason I haven't posted lately.

Was listening yesterday to the delightful Gloucestershire Wassail song ("wassail, wassail all over the town") and wondering if a version of it was sung in Richard's time He would have loved some of the choral arrangements.

Carol

David wrote:

"I wanted to point out that it is true Richard is descended from Llewelyn and Henry from the steward, but it is not true that Henry was not descended from Llewelyn."
I"n fact, based on the usually accepted lines - by that I mean, ignoring any imagined false paternity events, Henry was descended from Llewelyn the Great through both his father and his mother."
Carol responds:

How so? Richard is descended from Llewellyn on his father's side through the Mortimers, who married into the Clarence and York lines. John of Gaunt's descendants, Beaufort or Plantagenet, would not be affected. (That would include Richard's maternal grandmother, Joan Beaufort, and her niece, Margaret Beaufort., Henry's mother.) If there *is* a Beaufort connection, then Richard shares it with Henry (assuming that Henry's grandfather John Beaufort was really a Beaufort and not a Swynford!) As for the Tudors, what is the line of descent there? (Not the whole thin,g just the descent from Llewellyn.)

"False paternity events." Isn't that the most egregious jargon? When I read that sort of euphemistic babble, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Carol

Carol earlier:

"How so? Richard is descended from Llewellyn on his father's side through the Mortimers, who married into the Clarence and York lines. John of Gaunt's descendants, Beaufort or Plantagenet, would not be affected. [snip]"

Sorrry, David. I see you've already answered my question. Like Mary, I had thought that Llewellyn ap Gryffith's only descendant was Gwenllian, placed by Edward I in a nunnery, but my source is Sharon Kay Penman, so I could be mistaken!

Also, given Henry's penchant for propaganda, especially relating to his dubious Welshness (aw you know, he was one quarter Welsh, one quarter French, and half English), I wonder how trustworthy his genealogies are.

I changed the subject line since we've long since stopped discussing JAH.

Carol

I've read that Henry got the heralds to draw up genealogies for him after he became king showing his royal Welsh descent, but that they are not accurate. Never looked into it myself.

Marie wrote :

I've read that Henry got the heralds to draw up genealogies for him after he became king showing his royal Welsh descent, but that they are not accurate. Never looked into it myself.

Carol responds:

My apologies if my partial response to this post appears twice or even three times. Yahoo is behaving oddly today.

Anyway, as I started to say, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Henry had the heralds invent a royal Welsh genealogy for him--or if Jasper had it done ahead of time as a recruitment too for the Welsh to make Henry's "claim" appear to be the fulfillment of a prophecy He (Henry) couldn't, of course, have done any such thing to woo the English, who knew his genealogy perfectly well--and knew that any claim he might make couldn't rest upon it. (I'm ignoring any possible infidelities, considering reputed Beauforts as Beauforts and reputed Tudors as Tudors.)

Carol

Carol,I think that Richard has more lines of descent from Llewelyn. I have identified 5, 2 of which are through his mother. The Stanleys also descend from him. We might have one of those situations where many of the nobles of the period have him in their family trees.
I was very dubious myself about the second daughter of Llewelyn the Last. I have done a little reading about it. I have seen a suggestion that she was invented by Owain Glyndur to strengthen his claim.
Her husband was supposedly Philip ap Ifor of Cardigan. I have read another article reworking this topic, suggesting an alternative genealogy that would again link to Llewelyn but not through a 'second' daughter.
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id125.html
The same site has an interesting article about the descent of the Herberts.


Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 18 Dec 2015, 22:45:04, justcarol67@... [] wrote:

Carol earlier:

"How so? Richard is descended from Llewellyn on his father's side through the Mortimers, who married into the Clarence and York lines. John of Gaunt's descendants, Beaufort or Plantagenet, would not be affected. [snip]"

Sorrry, David. I see you've already answered my question. Like Mary, I had thought that Llewellyn ap Gryffith's only descendant was Gwenllian, placed by Edward I in a nunnery, but my source is Sharon Kay Penman, so I could be mistaken!

Also, given Henry's penchant for propaganda, especially relating to his dubious Welshness (aw you know, he was one quarter Welsh, one quarter French, and half English), I wonder how trustworthy his genealogies are.

I changed the subject line since we've long since stopped discussing JAH.

Carol

Re the second daughter, I've been to Sempringham where Gwenllian spent her life. She was thought so special that Edward III used to visit her. That would seem to indicate she was indeed the only one. Her uncle Dafydd also had a daughter who was sent to a convent in Lincolnshire where she died in 1336.
Other than that I find that Welsh genealogy at this point is so packed with children who could or could not be legitimate that I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to conjure up some sort of link. After all, as you say, an awful lot of the aristocracy and gentry in the North West have a Welsh connection at some point. H


From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 21 December 2015, 21:37
Subject: RE: Henry's descent from LLewellyn Fawr

Carol,I think that Richard has more lines of descent from Llewelyn. I have identified 5, 2 of which are through his mother. The Stanleys also descend from him. We might have one of those situations where many of the nobles of the period have him in their family trees.
I was very dubious myself about the second daughter of Llewelyn the Last. I have done a little reading about it. I have seen a suggestion that she was invented by Owain Glyndur to strengthen his claim.
Her husband was supposedly Philip ap Ifor of Cardigan. I have read another article reworking this topic, suggesting an alternative genealogy that would again link to Llewelyn but not through a 'second' daughter.
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id125.html
The same site has an interesting article about the descent of the Herberts.


Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 18 Dec 2015, 22:45:04, justcarol67@... [] wrote: Carol earlier:

"How so? Richard is descended from Llewellyn on his father's side through the Mortimers, who married into the Clarence and York lines. John of Gaunt's descendants, Beaufort or Plantagenet, would not be affected. [snip]"

Sorrry, David. I see you've already answered my question. Like Mary, I had thought that Llewellyn ap Gryffith's only descendant was Gwenllian, placed by Edward I in a nunnery, but my source is Sharon Kay Penman, so I could be mistaken!

Also, given Henry's penchant for propaganda, especially relating to his dubious Welshness (aw you know, he was one quarter Welsh, one quarter French, and half English), I wonder how trustworthy his genealogies are.

I changed the subject line since we've long since stopped discussing JAH.

Carol

Hello, I am enjoying the book, but whether or not its any better than the many other books, well that is something I am not sure about. It's an easy read, well researched, breaks down the family conflicts as well as the main contenders, looks briefly at the origins and the definition of the name of the conflict. He uses the sources well and as a book it is enjoyable. I would recommend it, but I would also recommend Matthew Lewis and Martin J Dougherty, the latter is excellent for bringing the main characters to life and for great insets and battle guides. I would not recommend Dan Jones, save as a companion to Game of Thrones lol. Watched his Britain's Bloody Throne, a misguided skwewed and wildly inaccurate, but entertaining version of the Wars of the Roses.

Dan Jones? Yuk. He is only after the Michael Woods sexiest historian on tv award with the leather jacket and hipster jeans. Shame he doesn't know his facts as well as Woods does, and cares even less it appears for truth.And all those actors who look little like the real people in his programmes devalue everything even more. I guess he chooses to use them to obfuscate his lack of accuracy.Paul
On 8 Jan 2016, at 02:35, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:


Hello, I am enjoying the book, but whether or not its any better than the many other books, well that is something I am not sure about. It's an easy read, well researched, breaks down the family conflicts as well as the main contenders, looks briefly at the origins and the definition of the name of the conflict. He uses the sources well and as a book it is enjoyable. I would recommend it, but I would also recommend Matthew Lewis and Martin J Dougherty, the latter is excellent for bringing the main characters to life and for great insets and battle guides. I would not recommend Dan Jones, save as a companion to Game of Thrones lol. Watched his Britain's Bloody Throne, a misguided skwewed and wildly inaccurate, but entertaining version of the Wars of the Roses.

I do find it interesting that those many historians, like Dan Jones, who claim that Richard seized the throne fail to explain why he had to send for help from his loyal supporters in Yorkshire in the following weeks. Seized to me means an armed coup; you don't seize something by asking to have it; you need to make sure you get it or you just look daft. I doubt very much the Lords spiritual and temporal would have agreed to his having it without believing he should. They clearly didn't have swords at their throats - er, which they did when Henry took over. H


From: poohlandeva <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 January 2016, 2:35
Subject: Re: John Ashdown Hill

Hello, I am enjoying the book, but whether or not its any better than the many other books, well that is something I am not sure about. It's an easy read, well researched, breaks down the family conflicts as well as the main contenders, looks briefly at the origins and the definition of the name of the conflict. He uses the sources well and as a book it is enjoyable. I would recommend it, but I would also recommend Matthew Lewis and Martin J Dougherty, the latter is excellent for bringing the main characters to life and for great insets and battle guides. I would not recommend Dan Jones, save as a companion to Game of Thrones lol. Watched his Britain's Bloody Throne, a misguided skwewed and wildly inaccurate, but entertaining version of the Wars of the Roses.

Having studied Richard Duke of York recently, the portrayal in Dan Brown was nothing like the man the sources bring or in anything else I have read. He seemed a strong, but sensible man, forced to make a radical stand by a hapless King and a group of nobles with no gift for government and who wer a load of dandies. York had served well in Ireland and France, was a shrewd administrator and the best man to rule England. He may have been reckless in not waiting for reinforcements but he was low on supplies. He was also forced to leave his wife and two young sons in Ludlow at the mercy of Margaret of Anjou, not an easy choice. York did not cause the wars that followed, the failure of Margaret and her supporters to recognise the frailty of Henry and to work with York or back his more legitimate claim caused the problem. Just as his father should have ruled by right, his son Edward did rule by right and settled the country well, and our Richard was indeed invited to rule by right, not taking advantage of his claim, but working with all sides if they were loyal. He was betrayed by those he rewarded. Selfish land grabbing nobles puffged up by their own importance, where as much a problem for Richard as they had always been. Had Richard won Bosworth he would have gone down in history as generous, tolerant, a good fair minded ruler, a law giver, commander and champion of justice. Perhaps everything his father should have been had he been King and so much more.
One thing of interest in JAH book, it is clear that he does not see Owen Tudor as the father of Edmund and grandfather of Henry Vll. He favours as do others Edmund Beaufort, this is evident from one of the chapters that argues for this and his choice of descriptions. It does influence his take on things. This makes his book a little different.