The strange death of John Mowbray?

John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was of course the brother-in-law if Eleanor Butler.

According to the Pastons, he got up on the morning of 16 Jan 1476 in Norwich and by the evening he was dead. He was 31. It's something that is always glossed over in a lot of works and there is no explanation like plague or an accident, but it was by no means an inconvenient death. John Howard grabbed his title (which he was entitled to), Edward grabbed his lands via an arranged marriage between his son and Mowbray's daughter, and the Pastons grabbed back Caister, which Edward had hesitated to get involved in at their request. Moreover, it removed the most senior non-royal duke who might one day be faced with the task of arranging the coronation of an individual he probably knew to be illegitimate. That is assuming his wife confided in him?

I've often wondered about it. 1476 sees the lack of diversion which would no doubt have arisen from the anticipated but abandoned French War. Things also start to get itchy around Clarence. Were the Woodvilles starting to get worried? If I was writing a detective novel about Eleanor then I'd have to include Mowbray as a 'victim', particularly taking into account the rather strange circumstances surrounding her own sudden death. H

John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was of course the brother-in-law if Eleanor Butler.

According to the Pastons, he got up on the morning of 16 Jan 1476 in Norwich and by the evening he was dead. He was 31. It's something that is always glossed over in a lot of works and there is no explanation like plague or an accident, but it was by no means an inconvenient death. John Howard grabbed his title (which he was entitled to), Edward grabbed his lands via an arranged marriage between his son and Mowbray's daughter, and the Pastons grabbed back Caister, which Edward had hesitated to get involved in at their request. Moreover, it removed the most senior non-royal duke who might one day be faced with the task of arranging the coronation of an individual he probably knew to be illegitimate. That is assuming his wife confided in him?

Doug here:

I checked the Wikipedia entry for him and found out that he was descended from Anne of Gloucester, the eldest daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. Why would that make him the most senior non-royal duke? Was his descent from Anne too distant for him to be considered royal? Was that designation reserved for immediate members of the current monarch's family?

I'm presuming John Howard should have inherited the title because of his descent from Thomas Mowbry, Duke of Norfolk? Well, that and the fact there were no more male Mowbrys? BTW, am I correct in presuming that, at that period anyway, titles weren't usually passed on via female descent?

Something else also occurred to me, besides the idea that coincidences do occur; Do we have any idea of what caused his daughter's death? If he had some form of a, say, congenital heart defect, what would the odds be of his passing such a condition on?

Hilary concluded:

I've often wondered about it. 1476 sees the lack of diversion which would no doubt have arisen from the anticipated but abandoned French War. Things also start to get itchy around Clarence. Were the Woodvilles starting to get worried? If I was writing a detective novel about Eleanor then I'd have to include Mowbray as a 'victim', particularly taking into account the rather strange circumstances surrounding her own sudden death.

Doug here:

I dunno; if I had possession of information that someone might wish to kill me to prevent my repeating it, the first thing I'd do would be to  repeat it. Either orally to one, or more, trusted members of the clergy or via letters to several well-trusted compatriots. If as many people did know of Eleanor's marriage to Edward as some suggest, there certainly wouldn't be a lack of people to confide in. The important part, of course, would be the necessity to get word about the arrangements made back to whoever one felt was the source of the threat.

Doug

Who often wonders if Eleanor, considering what she'd have to go through, simply didn't want to be Queen?

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

The title actually passed first to John Mowbray’s daughter and then to her widower, Richard Duke of York . Only when his illegitimacy was exposed was it transferred to Sir John Howard. The Norfolk title was the first “non-royal” Duchy to be created, although the line is easily traceable to Edward I.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 07 February 2017 02:52
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] The strange death of John Mowbray?

Hilary wrote:

“John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was of course the brother-in-law if Eleanor Butler.

According to the Pastons, he got up on the morning of 16 Jan 1476 in Norwich and by the evening he was dead. He was 31. It's something that is always glossed over in a lot of works and there is no explanation like plague or an accident, but it was by no means an inconvenient death. John Howard grabbed his title (which he was entitled to), Edward grabbed his lands via an arranged marriage between his son and Mowbray's daughter, and the Pastons grabbed back Caister, which Edward had hesitated to get involved in at their request. Moreover, it removed the most senior non-royal duke who might one day be faced with the task of arranging the coronation of an individual he probably knew to be illegitimate. That is assuming his wife confided in him?”

Doug here:

I checked the Wikipedia entry for him and found out that he was descended from Anne of Gloucester, the eldest daughter of Thomas of Woodstock , Duke of Gloucester . Why would that make him “the most senior non-royal duke”? Was his descent from Anne too distant for him to be considered “royal”? Was that designation reserved for immediate members of the current monarch’s family?

I’m presuming John Howard should have inherited the title because of his descent from Thomas Mowbry, Duke of Norfolk ? Well, that and the fact there were no more male Mowbrys? BTW, am I correct in presuming that, at that period anyway, titles weren’t usually passed on via female descent?

Something else also occurred to me, besides the idea that coincidences do occur; Do we have any idea of what caused his daughter’s death? If he had some form of a, say, congenital heart defect, what would the odds be of his passing such a condition on?

Hilary concluded:

“I've often wondered about it. 1476 sees the lack of diversion which would no doubt have arisen from the anticipated but abandoned French War. Things also start to get itchy around Clarence. Were the Woodvilles starting to get worried? If I was writing a detective novel about Eleanor then I'd have to include Mowbray as a 'victim', particularly taking into account the rather strange circumstances surrounding her own sudden death.”

Doug here:

I dunno; if I had possession of information that someone might wish to kill me to prevent my repeating it, the first thing I’d do would be to – repeat it. Either orally to one, or more, trusted members of the clergy or via letters to several well-trusted compatriots. If as many people did know of Eleanor’s marriage to Edward as some suggest, there certainly wouldn’t be a lack of people to confide in. The important part, of course, would be the necessity to get word about the arrangements made back to whoever one felt was the source of the threat.

Doug

Who often wonders if Eleanor, considering what she’d have to go through, simply didn’t want to be Queen?

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

The title actually passed first to John Mowbray's daughter and then to her widower, Richard Duke of York . Only when his illegitimacy was exposed was it transferred to Sir John Howard. The Norfolk title was the first non-royal Duchy to be created, although the line is easily traceable to Edward I.

Doug here:

Thank you. While Wikipedia had the information about the title going from the Mowbrays to Richard, Duke of York and then to the Howards, it didn't mention its' origins.

Doug

Hilary wrote:

"I found the Collins/Annette argument quite persuasive but why would EW want to kill him before her son was of age?"

Carol responds:

Because after he was of age, they wouldn't be able to control him and their influence (especially EW's, since E5 didn't know his mother well) would have been limited, especially if the young king thought highly of himself and his abilities?

Carol

I found the Collins/Annette argument quite persuasive but why would EW want to kill him before her son was of age?

Marie here:

That's the nub - or a good part of it - for me. It was not in EW's interests to kill Edward at that time, and it was even less in her interests to kill him whilst her son was so far from court.

I don't personally see anything suspicious about Edward's death, but if by some remote chance it did turn out to be poison then surely Louis XI ought to be near the top of the suspect list?

Also with Norfolk, I would be interested to know whether the records contain any clues that he may have been unhealthy. There's nothing odd about John Howard getting the title of course. After the death of little Anne the direct line came to an end, leaving Howard and William Berkeley as the heirs general. They could, in the normal way of things, have expected the sort of award that Richard made them had Edward not already pushed a bill through parliament ensuring the duchy to his son even in the event of Anne Mowbray dying before the marriage could be consummated or produce children. In 1483 John Howard could have jumped on Richard's bandwagon merely in order to get the duchy of Norfolk, but there is some evidence that he and Richard had a working relationship going back many years, and Howard certainly didn't let Richard down after he'd got what he wanted (i.e. he died defending his crown at Bosworth).

By the by, as regards Anne Mowbray, they did find substantial traces of antimony in her hair.

Because after he was of age, they wouldn't be able to control him and their influence (especially EW's, since E5 didn't know his mother well) would have been limited, especially if the young king thought highly of himself and his abilities?
Carol

Marie:

But Collins' theory overlooks the awkward fact that English custom - constitution, if you kike - provided no role for the widowed queen consort during a minority. The rights were held to rest with those of the king's relations who belonged to the English royal line. This is why the Woodville's bid to take control of the boy king caused such a crisis.

Marie wrote:

That's the nub - or a good part of it - for me. It was not in EW's interests to kill Edward at that time, and it was even less in her interests to kill him whilst her son was so far from court.

I don't personally see anything suspicious about Edward's death, but if by some remote chance it did turn out to be poison then surely Louis XI ought to be near the top of the suspect list?

Doug here:

I've been re-reading The Maligned King and on the very first page, the fifth paragraph to be exact, Annette Carson wrote: In a recent parliamentary session he [Edward] had also committed to a war of retribution against France... Would that have been enough motive for Louis? I also found in Wikipedia that Louis died in August of 1483. Is there any evidence that Louis, regardless of whether or not he might have known he was dying, had decided to ensure his realm against the possibility of Edward carrying out his commitment?

Then, of course, there's always the possibility that, if Edward was poisoned, the poisoner could still have been a Woodville who believed that a minor king, reliant on his Woodville relatives, was better than Edward IV.

Marie continued:

Also with Norfolk, I would be interested to know whether the records contain any clues that he may have been unhealthy. There's nothing odd about John Howard getting the title of course. After the death of little Anne the direct line came to an end, leaving Howard and William Berkeley as the heirs general. They could, in the normal way of things, have expected the sort of award t hat Richard made them had Edward not already pushed a bill through parliament ensuring the duchy to his son even in the event of Anne Mowbray dying before the marriage could be consummated or produce children. In 1483 John Howard could have jumped on Richard's bandwagon merely in order to get the duchy of Norfolk, but there is some evidence that he and Richard had a working relationship going back many years, and Howard certainly didn't let Richard down after he'd got what he wanted (i.e. he died defending his crown at Bosworth).

Doug here:

Of course it's only anecdotal evidence, but as I've read far too many modern obituaries where someone, literally, dropped dead with no previous suspicion of any ill-health, it certainly seems possible for the same to have occurred in the 15th century. And then there's the possibility of, say, a congenital heart defect or similar medical problem that, until something occurred, would go un-noticed.

Marie concluded:

By the by, as regards Anne Mowbray, they did find substantial traces of antimony in her hair.

Doug here:

Perhaps she also had a favorite cup? It does make me wonder, if we were able to check the hair of X number of persons who'd lived during that time, how many would also show traces of antimony?

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

It could have been enough for Louis. Edward was certainly under the impression that Louis was likely to try to poison him before his first French adventure. And Louis had probably already poisoned at least two people: Agnes Sorel and his own brother.

But I have to say that for all that I see nothing particularly suspicious about Edward's death. Interestingly, in the light of Nico's comment, I'd always favoured pneumonia as a likely cause as it fits with both Mancini's story of the chill and Commines' "quaterre", and would even encompass Crowland's observation that he died of something most people would have thrown off - pneumonia being secondary to a cold, and the separate nature of the two infections not being understood. And it also fits the timeframe for Edward's last illness.

I agree that we should not forget Louis. After all, poisoning is a very 'European' practice. I just can't work out though who would want to kill Edward at that point. As you say, dowager queens and their relations had no role in protectorships in England. There was no guarantee that his death would leave a void of which MB could take advantage. There was every chance that Richard would have been a good, strong protector until the Woodvilles put a spanner in the works. And Louis had already cancelled the 'pension'. I can find a method but no motive. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017, 1:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: The strange death of John Mowbray?

I found the Collins/Annette argument quite persuasive but why would EW want to kill him before her son was of age?

Marie here:That's the nub - or a good part of it - for me. It was not in EW's interests to kill Edward at that time, and it was even less in her interests to kill him whilst her son was so far from court.I don't personally see anything suspicious about Edward's death, but if by some remote chance it did turn out to be poison then surely Louis XI ought to be near the top of the suspect list?
Also with Norfolk, I would be interested to know whether the records contain any clues that he may have been unhealthy. There's nothing odd about John Howard getting the title of course. After the death of little Anne the direct line came to an end, leaving Howard and William Berkeley as the heirs general. They could, in the normal way of things, have expected the sort of award that Richard made them had Edward not already pushed a bill through parliament ensuring the duchy to his son even in the event of Anne Mowbray dying before the marriage could be consummated or produce children. In 1483 John Howard could have jumped on Richard's bandwagon merely in order to get the duchy of Norfolk, but there is some evidence that he and Richard had a working relationship going back many years, and Howard certainly didn't let Richard down after he'd got what he wanted (i.e. he died defending his crown at Bosworth).
By the by, as regards Anne Mowbray, they did find substantial traces of antimony in her hair.

"I don't personally see anything suspicious about Edward's death, but if by some remote chance it did turn out to be poison then surely Louis XI ought to be near the top of the suspect list?"

Yes David, Louis probably knows he is dying in the Spring of 1483. Would he want to leave a legacy of war to his daughter? And I get the impression that Louis and Edward played a sort of game which involved spies, threats of war etc. In fact the whole display of 1475 was probably manufactured between the two of them.H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017, 22:22
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: The strange death of John Mowbray?

Hilary and MarieIt occurred to me some time ago that Louis, being a great player in the international political scene would have seen France benefit from the death of Edward. If you look at the situation in early 1483 without the benefit of knowing what happened...
If the death of Edward could occur before his son gained majority or married Anne of Brittany, any ensuing confusion could only benefit his country.
However, if you consult Commynes - who is usually very open about Louis's schemes, he says that Louis heard of Edward's death with great sadness.
Kind regardsDavid




Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 10:43, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: I agree that we should not forget Louis. After all, poisoning is a very 'European' practice. I just can't work out though who would want to kill Edward at that point. As you say, dowager queens and their relations had no role in protectorships in England. There was no guarantee that his death would leave a void of which MB could take advantage. There was every chance that Richard would have been a good, strong protector until the Woodvilles put a spanner in the works. And Louis had already cancelled the 'pension'. I can find a method but no motive. H

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017, 1:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: The strange death of John Mowbray?

I found the Collins/Annette argument quite persuasive but why would EW want to kill him before her son was of age?

Marie here:That's the nub - or a good part of it - for me. It was not in EW's interests to kill Edward at that time, and it was even less in her interests to kill him whilst her son was so far from court.I don't personally see anything suspicious about Edward's death, but if by some remote chance it did turn out to be poison then surely Louis XI ought to be near the top of the suspect list?
Also with Norfolk, I would be interested to know whether the records contain any clues that he may have been unhealthy. There's nothing odd about John Howard getting the title of course. After the death of little Anne the direct line came to an end, leaving Howard and William Berkeley as the heirs general. They could, in the normal way of things, have expected the sort of award that Richard made them had Edward not already pushed a bill through parliament ensuring the duchy to his son even in the event of Anne Mowbray dying before the marriage could be consummated or produce children. In 1483 John Howard could have jumped on Richard's bandwagon merely in order to get the duchy of Norfolk, but there is some evidence that he and Richard had a working relationship going back many years, and Howard certainly didn't let Richard down after he'd got what he wanted (i.e. he died defending his crown at Bosworth).
By the by, as regards Anne Mowbray, they did find substantial traces of antimony in her hair.

Marie wrote:

It could have been enough for Louis. Edward was certainly under the impression that Louis was likely to try to poison him before his first French adventure. And Louis had probably already poisoned at least two people: Agnes Sorel and his own brother.

Doug here:

I hadn't previously heard about Edward having any fears of poisoning in 1475(?). Interestingly enough, wasn't that shortly before George first made his fears known about being poisoned?

Marie continued:

But I have to say that for all that I see nothing particularly suspicious about Edward's death. Interestingly, in the light of Nico's comment, I'd always favoured pneumonia as a likely cause as it fits with both Mancini's story of the chill and Commines' "quaterre", and would even encompass Crowland's observation that he died of something most people would have thrown off - pneumonia being secondary to a cold, and the separate nature of the two infections not being understood. And it also fits the timeframe for Edward's last illness.

Doug here:

I'm sorry to admit pneumonia never crossed my mind. Perhaps because I imagined the symptoms would have been well-known? I certainly agree that Edward, having not quite gotten over the effects of a severe cold and likely damaged his health via his lifestyle, then developed pneumonia from which he died. A simple and quite likely explanation.
Not nearly as exciting, though...

Hi Doug,

I've got an idea that Collins states that the symptoms of pneumonia would have been well known, and that Annette Carson repeats this, but I'm not sure this is a valid objection.

Firstly, looking up the word pneumonia in the OED, I see that we first get peripneumonia, which appears in the 16th century as a general term for the lung-based equivalent of lethargus, lethargus being a sickness of caused by phlegm in the head, and peripneumonia being caused by phlegm in the lungs. So not yet what we would understand by pneumonia, which is an acute, immediately life-threatening infection of the lungs. The term morphed into pneumonia over the next century, and was understood as inflammation of the lungs, and sounds as though it comprised acute forms. The modern definition seems to have developed over time.

So that's one reservation. The other is that have clear causes of death recorded for extremely few medieval people, and when we do they are often not convincing to our modern medical notions (e.g. a surfeit of lampreys). Nobody at the time expressed an opinion that Edward's death was suspicious. Mancini clearly records that he caught a child and went down from there, which absolutely suggests pneumonia. Crowland (who wasn't a physician) was puzzled as to how a trivial infection could have killed such a strong man, but we now know that pneumonia is not caused by the cold itself but by a secondary infective agent that takes advantage of the favourable conditions. Commines' quaterre is the same word as catarrh and could at that period refer to any effusion of fluid in the head area, whether phlegm or blood, so was also used to describe a stroke, but it is quite consistent with a cold setting off pneumonia.

I think the first (and possibly only?) early writer to hint that there may have been something suspicious was Vergil, but he was merely embellishing Crowland. Surely if the circumstances of Edward's death had been suspicious Richard would have heard and conducted some sort of investigation. And if EW and her family had poisoned him one might have expected them have rushed the funeral, but that didn't happen either.

Marie wrote:

" Mancini clearly records that he caught a child . . " (when out fishing).

Marie corrects:

Obviously I meant he caught a chill.