Buckingham's mother

I was trying to gather some information for a belated reply to Hilary's
message when I came across the DNB entry for Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of
Buckingham.
I quote:
Stafford, Henry, second Duke of Buckingham (1454?-1483), was the son of
Humphrey Stafford, who died in the lifetime of his father, Humphrey
Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham [q.v.] His mother was Margaret,
daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of
Somerset.
Which led me to the DNB entry for Margaret Beaufort (1441-1509), in which
she is named as being the daughter of John, 1st Duke
of Somerset.
A check with Wikipedia and I find the article there for our Henry Stafford,
Duke of Buckingham starts out:
The son of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort,
Countess of Stafford...
Help!
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Quite simple, really. The first two Dukes
of Somerset were brothers, because the first had no legitimate sons. Both had
daughters named Margaret, who married Edmund “Tudor” and Humphrey of Stafford,
who had sons named Henry in the same year.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 15 April 2016 15:17
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Buckingham's mother



I was trying to gather
some information for a belated reply to Hilary’s message when I came across the
DNB entry for Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
I quote:
“Stafford, Henry,
second Duke of Buckingham (1454?-1483), was the son of Humphrey Stafford, who
died in the lifetime of his father, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of
Buckingham [q.v.] His mother was Margaret, daughter of Edmund Beaufort,
2nd
Duke of Somerset.”
Which led me to the
DNB entry for “Margaret Beaufort (1441-1509),” in which she is named as being
the daughter of John,
1st
Duke of Somerset.
A check with Wikipedia
and I find the article there for our Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham starts
out:
“The son of Humphrey
Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford ...”
Help!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

>>>Quite
simple, really. The first two Dukes of Somerset were brothers, because the first
had no legitimate sons. Both had daughters named Margaret, who married Edmund
Tudor and Humphrey of Stafford, who had sons named Henry in the same
year.<<<
That has a horrible ring to it,
Stephen. No self-respecting novelist would invent it!
<g>

#ygrps-yiv-1592565859 blockquote, #ygrps-yiv-1592565859 div.ygrps-yiv-1592565859yahoo_quoted {
margin-left:0 !important;border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important;padding-left:1ex !important;background-color:white;}

Yes. Buckinghams mother is interesting because she is related by her other marriage to our friend Colyngbourne. H. (Who is in Hong Kong and struggling without notes) I've also found some very interesting bits on the relationship between the Woodvilles and Stillington's friends. Will come back to you when I can. It throws a new light on quite a few things or shall I say makes them even more at variance with the accepted story.Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, April 15, 2016, 10:40 pm, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


Quite simple, really. The first two Dukes
of Somerset were brothers, because the first had no legitimate sons. Both had
daughters named Margaret, who married Edmund Tudor and Humphrey of Stafford,
who had sons named Henry in the same year.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 15 April 2016 15:17
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Buckingham's mother



I was trying to gather
some information for a belated reply to Hilary's message when I came across the
DNB entry for Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
I quote:
Stafford, Henry,
second Duke of Buckingham (1454?-1483), was the son of Humphrey Stafford, who
died in the lifetime of his father, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of
Buckingham [q.v.] His mother was Margaret, daughter of Edmund Beaufort,
2nd
Duke of Somerset.
Which led me to the
DNB entry for Margaret Beaufort (1441-1509), in which she is named as being
the daughter of John,
1st
Duke of Somerset.
A check with Wikipedia
and I find the article there for our Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham starts
out:
The son of Humphrey
Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford ...
Help!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Stephen wrote:
Quite simple, really.
The first two Dukes of Somerset were brothers, because the first had no
legitimate sons. Both had daughters named Margaret, who married Edmund Tudor
and Humphrey of Stafford, who had sons named Henry in the same
year.
Doug
here:
So, Henry
Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was the son of Humphrey Stafford and Margaret
Beaufort, the latter being the daughter of Edmund Beaufort, the 2nd Duke of
Somerset, while our Margaret Beaufort, the mother of HT, was the daughter of
John, 1st Duke of Somerset.
Making Henry
Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort, styled Countess of Richmond,
second cousins? Who would have the most senior claim to the throne then,
presuming the Beauforts could inherit it, HT or Buckingham? HT would only have a
claim via his mother, but Stafford would have claims via both
parents, wouldn't he?
Anyway, thank you
very much for the information, Stephen!
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Yes.
Buckinghams mother is interesting because she is related by her other marriage
to our friend Colyngbourne. H. (Who is in Hong Kong and struggling without
notes) I've also found some very interesting bits on the relationship between
the Woodvilles and Stillington's friends. Will come back to you when I can. It
throws a new light on quite a few things or shall I say makes them even more at
variance with the accepted story.
Doug
here:
Oh
Heavens, not more Margarets?
Doug
Who
gets more and more appreciative of your work every time there's a question such
as this!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes, second cousins. You are right about
the other point as well.
Henry IV excluded the Beaufort claim and
the Dukes’ father was possibly Sir Hugh Swynford, anyway. The Staffords did
have a junior claim.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 16 April 2016 15:19
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE:
Buckingham's mother




Stephen
wrote:
“Quite simple, really. The first two Dukes of Somerset were
brothers, because the first had no legitimate sons. Both had daughters named
Margaret, who married Edmund “Tudor” and Humphrey of Stafford, who had sons
named Henry in the same year.”
Doug here:
So, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was the son of
Humphrey Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, the latter being the daughter of
Edmund Beaufort, the 2nd Duke of Somerset, while “our” Margaret Beaufort, the
mother of HT, was the daughter of John, 1st Duke of Somerset.
Making Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort,
styled Countess of Richmond, second cousins? Who would have the most senior
claim to the throne then, presuming the Beauforts could inherit it, HT or
Buckingham? HT would only have a claim via his mother, but Stafford
would have claims via both parents, wouldn’t he?
Anyway, thank you very much for the information, Stephen!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Which is more evidence for my conspiracy theory that MB ensured that everyone who had a better claim than her dear Henry was eliminated!! It is rather convenient that between April 1483 and August 1485 they all died.Mary

Stephen
wrote:
Yes, second cousins.
You are right about the other point as well.
Henry IV excluded the
Beaufort claim and the Dukes' father was possibly Sir Hugh Swynford, anyway. The
Staffords did have a junior claim.

Doug
here:
And what would happen
if one took that junior claim and added to it the Woodvilles, any disaffected
Yorkists one might have lying around and all the remaining
Lancastrians?
Sounds suspiciously to
me what brought HT to throne.
Well, that and a couple
of thousand French mercenaries...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

It's surprising how many disaffected Lancastrians had friends in the Woodville clan eg Walter Hungerford was big buddies with the Raynsfords. I haven't finished yet but I am coming more and more to the view that this was a Woodville centred plot to as you say Doug bring in those out in the cold to support a new regime which excluded Richard and some of the northern loyalists. I'm also beginning to wonder whether EW knew about the pre contract all along. Edward could have promised her he'd deal with any accusations, Eleanor was packed off to the country watched by Mowbray who also died mysteriously and as we've said the information was only useful once Edward was dead. If his boys were grown up he would be virtually unchallengeable. The fly in the ointment was Clarence who was clearly unstable (and the rightful heir). Why I say this is that two of Stillington's West Country buddies were related to the Woodvilles Chokke was EW's cousin. Only fell upon that the other day. So why would Stillington spill the beans and damage the close relatives of his grandchildrens guardian? But he would be in a great position to plot against Clarence. All I can struggle to type now and apologies for poor typing and no paras. HSent from my iPhone On 17 Apr 2016, at 23:40, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Stephen
wrote:
Yes, second cousins.
You are right about the other point as well.
Henry IV excluded the
Beaufort claim and the Dukes' father was possibly Sir Hugh Swynford, anyway. The
Staffords did have a junior claim.

Doug
here:
And what would happen
if one took that junior claim and added to it the Woodvilles, any disaffected
Yorkists one might have lying around and all the remaining
Lancastrians?
Sounds suspiciously to
me what brought HT to throne.
Well, that and a couple
of thousand French mercenaries...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

So could MB have been supporting EW in order to ensure that Henry was allowed to come home or was she secretly plotting to make him King? There were connections between MB and EW, Dr Lewis for instance.Mary

Mary
wrote:
So
could MB have been supporting EW in order to ensure that Henry was allowed to
come home or was she secretly plotting to make him King? There were
connections between MB and EW, Dr Lewis for instance. 
Doug
here:
My
personal view is that, until after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's
goal was to get her son back to England without any stay in the Tower.\I believe
that, during Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's intent was to garner as much support
for a return of Edward V by allying her son to Edward via a
marriage to Elizabeth of York, thus throwing all the Lancastrian support
she could muster behind a return of the Yorkists. Thus
Buckingham's attempt to oust Richard would have the support of Edward V's
supporters (Woodvilles, Stanleys, etc.), the remaining Lancastrians and as many
disaffected supporters of Edward IV as possible. Likely a winning combination.
However, Buckingham failed and it was only then that, I believe, MB began
supporting the idea of her son becoming king; previously there had just been too
many other possible candidates.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Mary I'm with Doug! Perhaps we give her too much credit in these early days and the Lancaster heir story was constructed later. But one problem I have is who did reveal the precontract story and why? HSent from my iPhone On 18 Apr 2016, at 22:16, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Mary
wrote:
So
could MB have been supporting EW in order to ensure that Henry was allowed to
come home or was she secretly plotting to make him King? There were
connections between MB and EW, Dr Lewis for instance. 
Doug
here:
My
personal view is that, until after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's
goal was to get her son back to England without any stay in the Tower.\I believe
that, during Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's intent was to garner as much support
for a return of Edward V by allying her son to Edward via a
marriage to Elizabeth of York, thus throwing all the Lancastrian support
she could muster behind a return of the Yorkists. Thus
Buckingham's attempt to oust Richard would have the support of Edward V's
supporters (Woodvilles, Stanleys, etc.), the remaining Lancastrians and as many
disaffected supporters of Edward IV as possible. Likely a winning combination.
However, Buckingham failed and it was only then that, I believe, MB began
supporting the idea of her son becoming king; previously there had just been too
many other possible candidates.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

And where exactly is Buckingham in all this. Very few supporters of him I have to say. Was he another loose cannon? Perhaps as Annette has said the Woodvilles were getting nervous by the 1480s as Edward became lazier and weaker and EW became older so they might have had a sketchy plan in place ( I don't buy the poison story yet). But they had to act too hastily when he died. And along came Buckingham to support Richard right out of the blue. Don't know. HSent from my iPhone On 18 Apr 2016, at 22:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Mary I'm with Doug! Perhaps we give her too much credit in these early days and the Lancaster heir story was constructed later. But one problem I have is who did reveal the precontract story and why? HSent from my iPhoneOn 18 Apr 2016, at 22:16, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Mary
wrote:
So
could MB have been supporting EW in order to ensure that Henry was allowed to
come home or was she secretly plotting to make him King? There were
connections between MB and EW, Dr Lewis for instance. 
Doug
here:
My
personal view is that, until after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's
goal was to get her son back to England without any stay in the Tower.\I believe
that, during Buckingham's Rebellion, MB's intent was to garner as much support
for a return of Edward V by allying her son to Edward via a
marriage to Elizabeth of York, thus throwing all the Lancastrian support
she could muster behind a return of the Yorkists. Thus
Buckingham's attempt to oust Richard would have the support of Edward V's
supporters (Woodvilles, Stanleys, etc.), the remaining Lancastrians and as many
disaffected supporters of Edward IV as possible. Likely a winning combination.
However, Buckingham failed and it was only then that, I believe, MB began
supporting the idea of her son becoming king; previously there had just been too
many other possible candidates.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I agree it is a definite possibility. The Lancaster heir story was of course total nonsense as he was never the heir to Lancaster, only John of Gaunt's descendants by Blanche of Lancaster could claim that. We will probably never know as we are not likely to find a confession signed by MB.Mary