Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-03-28 21:50:05
Richard had an illegitimate relative named Lisle.
Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he and
his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
I shall look at my usual online sources!
Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he and
his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
I shall look at my usual online sources!
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-03-29 09:22:01
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Richard had an illegitimate relative named Lisle.
> Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he
and
> his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
> Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
> I shall look at my usual online sources!
I know a little more about Arthur, Viscount Lisle now in that he was
Edward IV's natural son, tried for treason at about eighty, acquitted
and promptly had a fatal coronary.
He had three daughters and fourteen grandchildren but no sons.
Furthermore, the title came from his first wife (a Grey) yet his
father-
in-law's male line seems not to have continued much further.
Is there a relationship with the regicide?
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Richard had an illegitimate relative named Lisle.
> Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he
and
> his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
> Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
> I shall look at my usual online sources!
I know a little more about Arthur, Viscount Lisle now in that he was
Edward IV's natural son, tried for treason at about eighty, acquitted
and promptly had a fatal coronary.
He had three daughters and fourteen grandchildren but no sons.
Furthermore, the title came from his first wife (a Grey) yet his
father-
in-law's male line seems not to have continued much further.
Is there a relationship with the regicide?
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-03-30 23:04:48
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Richard had an illegitimate relative named Lisle.
> > Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he
> and
> > his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
> > Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
> > I shall look at my usual online sources!
>
> I know a little more about Arthur, Viscount Lisle now in that he
was
> Edward IV's natural son, tried for treason at about eighty,
Well, maybe. To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of Edward
IV, he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
was known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
Wayte, also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign
of Henry VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I
find rather curious.
We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
passionate admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and
makes me wonder what contadictory material she shoved under her desk
blotter during her research. One thing that stands out is that if
this Arthur was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in
his life -- his becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his
political appointments -- came about 20 years later than the norm.
There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's" whole
life, and it might make a good subject for a research paper. My
suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow up
to be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy"
in another sense.
Arthur's first wife was Elizabeth Grey, Baroness Lisle. She was the
widow of Edmund Dudley, Duke of Northumberland and had four sons, the
eldest of whom, John Dudley, the next Duke of Northumberland, would
become prominent in history. Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward
Grey, Lord Lisle through his mother Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of the
younger of the Earl of Shrewsbury's two sons named John. By
Elizabeth Grey Arthur had three daughters.
Arthur's second wife was Honor Grenville, with whom he had no
children.
Since Arthur produced no sons, the Lisle title reverted to
Elizabeth's younger brother John Grey and it descended through his
line.
Katy
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Richard had an illegitimate relative named Lisle.
> > Sir John Lisle was a regicide in the seventeenth century. Both he
> and
> > his widow were executed, the latter after Sedgemoor.
> > Is there any connection? Please remind me who the former was.
> > I shall look at my usual online sources!
>
> I know a little more about Arthur, Viscount Lisle now in that he
was
> Edward IV's natural son, tried for treason at about eighty,
Well, maybe. To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of Edward
IV, he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
was known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
Wayte, also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign
of Henry VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I
find rather curious.
We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
passionate admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and
makes me wonder what contadictory material she shoved under her desk
blotter during her research. One thing that stands out is that if
this Arthur was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in
his life -- his becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his
political appointments -- came about 20 years later than the norm.
There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's" whole
life, and it might make a good subject for a research paper. My
suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow up
to be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy"
in another sense.
Arthur's first wife was Elizabeth Grey, Baroness Lisle. She was the
widow of Edmund Dudley, Duke of Northumberland and had four sons, the
eldest of whom, John Dudley, the next Duke of Northumberland, would
become prominent in history. Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward
Grey, Lord Lisle through his mother Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of the
younger of the Earl of Shrewsbury's two sons named John. By
Elizabeth Grey Arthur had three daughters.
Arthur's second wife was Honor Grenville, with whom he had no
children.
Since Arthur produced no sons, the Lisle title reverted to
Elizabeth's younger brother John Grey and it descended through his
line.
Katy
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-03-31 20:43:47
Katy:
... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of Edward IV,
he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he was
known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth Wayte,
also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of Henry
VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find rather
curious.
We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a passionate
admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes me
wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk blotter
during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this Arthur
was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life -- his
becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political appointments --
came about 20 years later than the norm.
There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research paper. My
suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow up to
be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy" in
another sense.
Ann:
Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir Thomas
FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at his
baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of Edward
IV [who died April 9, 1483].
L.P.H.,
Ann
If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body among the
tombs.
... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of Edward IV,
he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he was
known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth Wayte,
also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of Henry
VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find rather
curious.
We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a passionate
admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes me
wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk blotter
during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this Arthur
was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life -- his
becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political appointments --
came about 20 years later than the norm.
There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research paper. My
suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow up to
be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy" in
another sense.
Ann:
Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir Thomas
FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at his
baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of Edward
IV [who died April 9, 1483].
L.P.H.,
Ann
If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body among the
tombs.
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-04-01 00:03:13
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (CGT)"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> Katy:
>
> ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
Edward IV,
> he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he was
> known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
Wayte,
> also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of
Henry
> VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
rather
> curious.
>
> We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
passionate
> admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes me
> wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
blotter
> during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
Arthur
> was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life --
his
> becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
appointments --
> came about 20 years later than the norm.
>
> There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
paper. My
> suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow
up to
> be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy"
in
> another sense.
>
> Ann:
> Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
> birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir
Thomas
> FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at his
> baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of
Edward
> IV [who died April 9, 1483].
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
among the
> tombs.
In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why would
anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another illegitimate
son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
making his name known at the end of his life.
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> Katy:
>
> ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
Edward IV,
> he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he was
> known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
Wayte,
> also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of
Henry
> VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
rather
> curious.
>
> We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
passionate
> admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes me
> wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
blotter
> during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
Arthur
> was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life --
his
> becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
appointments --
> came about 20 years later than the norm.
>
> There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
paper. My
> suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow
up to
> be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned boy"
in
> another sense.
>
> Ann:
> Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
> birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir
Thomas
> FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at his
> baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of
Edward
> IV [who died April 9, 1483].
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
among the
> tombs.
In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why would
anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another illegitimate
son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
making his name known at the end of his life.
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-04-01 16:03:01
--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (CGT)"
> <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Katy:
> >
> > ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> > questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
> Edward IV,
> > he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
was
> > known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
> Wayte,
> > also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of
> Henry
> > VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
> rather
> > curious.
> >
> > We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> > collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
> passionate
> > admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes
me
> > wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
> blotter
> > during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
> Arthur
> > was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life --
> his
> > becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
> appointments --
> > came about 20 years later than the norm.
> >
> > There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> > whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
> paper. My
> > suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow
> up to
> > be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned
boy"
> in
> > another sense.
> >
> > Ann:
> > Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> > Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
> > birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir
> Thomas
> > FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at
his
> > baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of
> Edward
> > IV [who died April 9, 1483].
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
> among the
> > tombs.
>
>
>
> In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why
would
> anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
> Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another illegitimate
> son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
> unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
> Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
> making his name known at the end of his life.
So I'll have another look at Castelli and TP-L's site to see if I can
connect them properly!
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (CGT)"
> <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Katy:
> >
> > ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> > questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
> Edward IV,
> > he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
was
> > known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
> Wayte,
> > also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign of
> Henry
> > VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
> rather
> > curious.
> >
> > We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> > collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
> passionate
> > admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and makes
me
> > wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
> blotter
> > during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
> Arthur
> > was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his life --
> his
> > becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
> appointments --
> > came about 20 years later than the norm.
> >
> > There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> > whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
> paper. My
> > suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not grow
> up to
> > be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned
boy"
> in
> > another sense.
> >
> > Ann:
> > Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> > Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests a
> > birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to Sir
> Thomas
> > FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at
his
> > baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son of
> Edward
> > IV [who died April 9, 1483].
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
> among the
> > tombs.
>
>
>
> In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why
would
> anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
> Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another illegitimate
> son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
> unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
> Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
> making his name known at the end of his life.
So I'll have another look at Castelli and TP-L's site to see if I can
connect them properly!
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-04-01 16:43:19
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
> <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Sharp, Ann (CGT)"
> > <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > > Katy:
> > >
> > > ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> > > questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
> > Edward IV,
> > > he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
> was
> > > known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
> > Wayte,
> > > also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign
of
> > Henry
> > > VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
> > rather
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> > > collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
> > passionate
> > > admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and
makes
> me
> > > wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
> > blotter
> > > during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
> > Arthur
> > > was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his
life --
>
> > his
> > > becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
> > appointments --
> > > came about 20 years later than the norm.
> > >
> > > There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> > > whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
> > paper. My
> > > suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not
grow
> > up to
> > > be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned
> boy"
> > in
> > > another sense.
> > >
> > > Ann:
> > > Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> > > Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests
a
> > > birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to
Sir
> > Thomas
> > > FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at
> his
> > > baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son
of
> > Edward
> > > IV [who died April 9, 1483].
> > >
> > > L.P.H.,
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > > If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
> > among the
> > > tombs.
> >
> >
> >
> > In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why
> would
> > anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
> > Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another
illegitimate
> > son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
> > unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
> > Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
> > making his name known at the end of his life.
>
> So I'll have another look at Castelli and TP-L's site to see if I
can
> connect them properly!
The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's mother
and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age having
been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention by
historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as Ann
guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his whole
argument is set out in his "Edward V".
Marie
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
> <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Sharp, Ann (CGT)"
> > <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > > Katy:
> > >
> > > ... To me, the story of Arthur Plantagenet has a number of
> > > questionable angles, starting with his name. As a bastard of
> > Edward IV,
> > > he did not have a right to the Plantagenet name. Originally he
> was
> > > known as Arthur Wayte and was presumably the son of Elizabeth
> > Wayte,
> > > also known as Elizabeth Lucy. At some point during the reign
of
> > Henry
> > > VII he starts being known as Arthur Plantagenet, which I find
> > rather
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > We mostly know of this Arthur from Muriel St Clair Byrnes's
> > > collection and editing of the Lisle Letters. She is such a
> > passionate
> > > admirer of Arthur that to me it taints her entire opus and
makes
> me
> > > wonder what contradictory material she shoved under her desk
> > blotter
> > > during her research. One thing that stands out is that if this
> > Arthur
> > > was born in 1461, as she says, then every milestone in his
life --
>
> > his
> > > becoming a knight, his first marriage, and his political
> > appointments --
> > > came about 20 years later than the norm.
> > >
> > > There is something out of whack about Arthur "Plantagenet's"
> > > whole life, and it might make a good subject for a research
> > paper. My
> > > suspicion is that there was an Arthur Wayte, but he did not
grow
> > up to
> > > be Arthur Plantagenet, that this Arthur P is another "feigned
> boy"
> > in
> > > another sense.
> > >
> > > Ann:
> > > Fascinating thought! Alternatively, Elizabeth Wayte and
> > > Elizabeth Lucy may be separate mistresses. Tudorplace suggests
a
> > > birthdates of, say, 1475, for Arthur. There's a reference to
Sir
> > Thomas
> > > FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel, acting as Arthur's godfather at
> his
> > > baptism in September 1486. This seems quite late for any son
of
> > Edward
> > > IV [who died April 9, 1483].
> > >
> > > L.P.H.,
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > > If Amelia Peabody is back, there's got to be another dead body
> > among the
> > > tombs.
> >
> >
> >
> > In view of what happened to Plantagenets under the Tudors, why
> would
> > anyone choose to use the name? I am thinking of Richard
> > Plantagenet, who pops up from time to time as another
illegitimate
> > son of our Richard. Surely, they would have wanted to remain
> > unnoticed? Obviously Arthur was fairly well known as one of
> > Edward's progeny, whereas it seems Richard P wasn't, except for
> > making his name known at the end of his life.
>
> So I'll have another look at Castelli and TP-L's site to see if I
can
> connect them properly!
The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's mother
and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age having
been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention by
historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as Ann
guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his whole
argument is set out in his "Edward V".
Marie
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-04-01 19:03:17
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's mother
> and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age having
> been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
> Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention by
> historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as
Ann
> guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
> mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
> Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his whole
> argument is set out in his "Edward V".
>
That takes care of the age problem, but I still wonder at why he used
the Plantagenet name. Not only was it not his right, but it should
have been dangerous.
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's mother
> and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age having
> been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
> Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention by
> historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as
Ann
> guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
> mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
> Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his whole
> argument is set out in his "Edward V".
>
That takes care of the age problem, but I still wonder at why he used
the Plantagenet name. Not only was it not his right, but it should
have been dangerous.
Katy
Re: Sorry, even more Yorkist genealogy
2005-04-02 19:03:26
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's
mother
> > and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age
having
> > been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
> > Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention
by
> > historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as
> Ann
> > guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
> > mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
> > Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his
whole
> > argument is set out in his "Edward V".
> >
> That takes care of the age problem, but I still wonder at why he
used
> the Plantagenet name. Not only was it not his right, but it should
> have been dangerous.
>
> Katy
Mmm. I wonder if maybe you're coming at the surname business from an
American viewpoint. Would I be right in thinking there is legislation
in US covering what surname you use? In England, on the other hand,
you can, and always have been able to, call yourself by any surname
you like. Theoretically Fred Jones the butcher down the road could
have called himself Fred Plantagenet if he fancied, though I imagine
it wouldn't have been a wise idea. Of course, Richard III's bastard
daughter was referred to as Katherine Plantagenet.
As for whether it was safe, now I'm wondering if he did ever call
himself Plantagenet, or just Waite; certainly everyone is agreed that
he called himself Waite early on. Perhaps it was later generations of
the family who liked to call him Plantagenet. Does anyone know any
more about our sources for this?
It seems to have been More who started the confusion, referring to
Lady Lucy as "Elizabeth", then 100 years later Buk says Arthur's
mother was Lady Lucy and she was born Elizabeth Wayte. Arthur does
seem to have been the son of an Elizabeth Wayte, but she was never
Lady Lucy. Lady Lucy (an early love) apparently gave Edward a
daughter, named Margaret like herself.
There are a few Wayte wills online in the PCC collection - on's an
Elizabeth. I've been very tempted to pay to download them but I
imagine if they had any news some historian would have looked at them
by now.
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The "mystery" appears to be a simple mix-up between Arthur's
mother
> > and an early mistress of Edward IV's, leading to Arthur's age
having
> > been completely wrongly miscalculated by historians (including
> > Castelli's sources, I should imagine), and even to the invention
by
> > historians of phantom Elizabeth Waytes. It is indeed the fact, as
> Ann
> > guessed, that Lady Lucy and Elizabeth Wayte were separate
> > mistresses; in fact, Lady Lucy's real first name was Margaret.
> > Michael Hicks has recently got to grips with the issue - his
whole
> > argument is set out in his "Edward V".
> >
> That takes care of the age problem, but I still wonder at why he
used
> the Plantagenet name. Not only was it not his right, but it should
> have been dangerous.
>
> Katy
Mmm. I wonder if maybe you're coming at the surname business from an
American viewpoint. Would I be right in thinking there is legislation
in US covering what surname you use? In England, on the other hand,
you can, and always have been able to, call yourself by any surname
you like. Theoretically Fred Jones the butcher down the road could
have called himself Fred Plantagenet if he fancied, though I imagine
it wouldn't have been a wise idea. Of course, Richard III's bastard
daughter was referred to as Katherine Plantagenet.
As for whether it was safe, now I'm wondering if he did ever call
himself Plantagenet, or just Waite; certainly everyone is agreed that
he called himself Waite early on. Perhaps it was later generations of
the family who liked to call him Plantagenet. Does anyone know any
more about our sources for this?
It seems to have been More who started the confusion, referring to
Lady Lucy as "Elizabeth", then 100 years later Buk says Arthur's
mother was Lady Lucy and she was born Elizabeth Wayte. Arthur does
seem to have been the son of an Elizabeth Wayte, but she was never
Lady Lucy. Lady Lucy (an early love) apparently gave Edward a
daughter, named Margaret like herself.
There are a few Wayte wills online in the PCC collection - on's an
Elizabeth. I've been very tempted to pay to download them but I
imagine if they had any news some historian would have looked at them
by now.
Marie
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.