Leslau Revisited
Leslau Revisited
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/leslau-holbein-more-and-clement/
Nico
Re: Leslau Revisited
However, I've tried to look at the whole thing in a different way.
Firstly, by whom and why was this painting commissioned? It would surely be a death sentence hanging on your wall? Any educated man of the time would look for allegory in painting; it was part of the game. And I bet King Henry was an expert.
So, having been out in the sun, I'm going to try another theory. Perhaps it was intended by Holbein to cause a bit of stir in foreign courts, after all, post Anne of Cleves he wasn't in much favour here? But this didn't happen - because he got it wrong. It is, after all a bit of a mystery as to who finished it, and does it still exist? I think Matthew Lewis struggled with this.
Now Holbein was a foreigner (obviously) in the English Court. Whist doing his lovely sketches he must have picked up a lot of gossip and some could have been an association between Thomas More, who had a judge father Sir John More, and the princes. Or at least he thought he heard Thomas More. So when More commissioned a portrait of his family there was an opportunity for Holbein to play this additional game.
How if he'd heard wrongly and it was Sir Thomas Moyle instead - he who 'revealed ' the supposed existence of Richard of Eastwell years' later? Moyle also had a prominent father, John Moyle, who had been commissioned by Richard to look into the 1483 rebellions. John Moyle's father, Walter (d. 1480) had been a retainer of Buckingham. He hailed from Kent, the real heartland of Woodville, Tyrell and St Leger support. It is much more likely that the Moyles had latent Yorkist leanings rather than More, whose second wife Alice Harpur, came from a family of staunch Stanley and Stafford supporters. Both More (b.1478)and Moyle (b 1490) were too young to have known or embraced the Yorkist cause so the leanings must have come from their fathers.
I think Leslau mentioned that the little dog in the foreground originally looked like a pig (or boar)? So the painting could be referring to the death of 'our' Richard and the Yorkest Dynasty, not Guildford (I don't believe that bit) and, as you say, the subject could be John of Gloucester or another child or Richard's?
Just my stab :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 May 2018, 22:15:36 BST, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
I made a rare visit to Facebook and noticed this extract from Matthew Lewis blog. It is a few years old, but it is a much more detailed and thought provoking explanation than I have read before. I had always dismissed Leslau's theories as an entertaining inspiration for Da Vinci Code type fiction, but there are some good points here that I hadn't previously considered. If John Clement did have a hidden royal identity, my favourite candidate is still John of Gloucester, but I have more of an open mind about the possibility of him being one of the Princes. Since the forum has been quiet, I thought it might be worth a review.
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/leslau-holbein-more-and-clement/
Nico
Re: Leslau Revisited
Hi,
I also have reservations about the age of John Clement. 98 was indeed an unusually long life for Tudor times, but I have considered the possibility that there were two John Clements - father and son; the father being the one who went to Louvain University in 1489 and was at the joust in 1510, and the son being the one who married Margaret Giggs. He was educated at Corpus Christi, Oxford and was a Rhetoric Reader there in 1519. He studied medicine later on, but it is unlikely that someone who didn't start studying medicine until his 50s would have such as eminent career as a physician. Clearly, this John Clement is younger than the Princes. Nevertheless, there is something unusual about someone with completely unknown origins being connected to so many people in high places.
Personally, I think John of Gloucester is a better fit. As I have mentioned before, I don't find Buck's account of HT murdering him at all convincing. There is no other evidence for it; it doesn't even name JofG, even though Buck would be familiar with what his name was, and the story sounds like a confused mishmash of hearsay. John of Gloucester was last heard of in Calais, and Louvain isn't far away from there. Also, the chapel at Pontefract Castle where he was allegedly born was dedicated to St. Clement, so he may have chosen that as a pseudonym. There is also the little dog who originally looked like a boar reference.
As for the picture, Holbein was introduced to Thomas More in 1526 by Erasmus, who has been the subject a speculative theory that he was Edward V. The painting that Leslau refers to is actually a copy by Rowland Lockey of an original painting by Holbein. It is unclear who commissioned the original which was believed to have been painted in Germany based on a drawing given to Erasmus, who liked it because it reminded him of happy times at More's house. The original Holbein painting was destroyed in a fire in the 1700s, so we can't refer to it. However, the sketch that was sent to Erasmus has survived, but John Clement is missing in this version. So, was John Clement later added into the Holbein painting, or did Lockey add him in, and if he intended to include him in the painting but deliberately left him out of Erasmus' drawing, what was the reason for it? Since the original is lost, we will never know. Perhaps Erasmus and Clement disliked each other, or could the omission be connected to the Edward V theories? (I have done some research on this, and while there are problems with the theory, there are some anomalies that make me stop short of discounting it entirely. I'll come back to it as it would require a separate post.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/26/topstories3.arts
http://www.amplab.ca/2016/10/05/strange-case-holbein-lockey-sir-thomas-
While the John Clement aspect of Leslau's research is still worth considering, the Edward Guildford theory doesn't make sense to me. I can't see how Edward V as a teenager could just assume the identity of a boy from such a prominent family, who was 9 years younger than him.
The Moyles are another interesting connection. Even if not connected to this painting, they still feature in the Richard of Eastwell story. Whatever anyone thinks of Baldwin's idea or the explanation given by the Moyle family, someone called Richard Plantagenet was buried at Eastwell in 1550, a village in the heart of Woodville country. I wouldn't rule out one of the Princes, or one of their sons, and if they did have children, they survived past 1483.
Nico
On Thursday, 10 May 2018, 12:23:50 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, i have a lot of time for Leslau but his big 'mistake' is surely the dates for John Clement? I now have a very big database of folk from this time (I'm told its called a 'data swamp') which does quash the notion that men of this time had a reduced life expectancy. But it is rare, very rare, to find someone in their nineties and the Plantagenets didn't seem to have the longevity gene.
However, I've tried to look at the whole thing in a different way.
Firstly, by whom and why was this painting commissioned? It would surely be a death sentence hanging on your wall? Any educated man of the time would look for allegory in painting; it was part of the game. And I bet King Henry was an expert.
So, having been out in the sun, I'm going to try another theory. Perhaps it was intended by Holbein to cause a bit of stir in foreign courts, after all, post Anne of Cleves he wasn't in much favour here? But this didn't happen - because he got it wrong. It is, after all a bit of a mystery as to who finished it, and does it still exist? I think Matthew Lewis struggled with this.
Now Holbein was a foreigner (obviously) in the English Court. Whist doing his lovely sketches he must have picked up a lot of gossip and some could have been an association between Thomas More, who had a judge father Sir John More, and the princes. Or at least he thought he heard Thomas More. So when More commissioned a portrait of his family there was an opportunity for Holbein to play this additional game.
How if he'd heard wrongly and it was Sir Thomas Moyle instead - he who 'revealed ' the supposed existence of Richard of Eastwell years' later? Moyle also had a prominent father, John Moyle, who had been commissioned by Richard to look into the 1483 rebellions. John Moyle's father, Walter (d. 1480) had been a retainer of Buckingham. He hailed from Kent, the real heartland of Woodville, Tyrell and St Leger support. It is much more likely that the Moyles had latent Yorkist leanings rather than More, whose second wife Alice Harpur, came from a family of staunch Stanley and Stafford supporters. Both More (b.1478)and Moyle (b 1490) were too young to have known or embraced the Yorkist cause so the leanings must have come from their fathers.
I think Leslau mentioned that the little dog in the foreground originally looked like a pig (or boar)? So the painting could be referring to the death of 'our' Richard and the Yorkest Dynasty, not Guildford (I don't believe that bit) and, as you say, the subject could be John of Gloucester or another child or Richard's?
Just my stab :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 May 2018, 22:15:36 BST, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
I made a rare visit to Facebook and noticed this extract from Matthew Lewis blog. It is a few years old, but it is a much more detailed and thought provoking explanation than I have read before. I had always dismissed Leslau's theories as an entertaining inspiration for Da Vinci Code type fiction, but there are some good points here that I hadn't previously considered. If John Clement did have a hidden royal identity, my favourite candidate is still John of Gloucester, but I have more of an open mind about the possibility of him being one of the Princes. Since the forum has been quiet, I thought it might be worth a review.
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/leslau-holbein-more-and-clement/
Nico
Re: Leslau Revisited
Something else that occurred to me was if "Perkin Warbeck" was really Richard of York could John Clement have been the child that he is supposed to have had with Katherine Gordon. The reason that it occurred to me was that there is a story that the child, a boy was sent to the Gower Peninsular in Wales to a place called Reynoldston and that there is a tradition that a family called Perkins are descended from him. It is also very telling that there might well have been a child because Katherine Gordon was kept at court as one of E of Y's ladies and H7 never allowed her to leave. However, after his father's death H8 allowed her to leave and she married several times, one of her husbands was Sir Matthew Craddock who was Steward of the Gower under H7 and H8. She was allowed to go and live with him in the Gower. I just wondered if it was a chance for her to see the child she had given up. I don't know when the child was born but it would presumably have been in the 1490s,making him about twenty odd years younger than Richard of York. The other thing that occurred to me was that my four times great grandmother was called Catherine Clement and while I don't know anything about her family the family she married into came from the part of Carmarthenshire near to the border with Glamorgan and the Gower Peninsular. I googled the name Clement and it appears to be quite a popular name in that part of the world. What if the child was sent to live with a family named Clement and took their name? I am not suggesting that it is anything to do with my family as I know nothing about them but only that it seems to have been a name that appears in Carmarthenshire /Glamorganshire.
If you have read the comments on Matthew's blog there is a lot of interesting information on there, including from someone who is researching for The Missing Princes Project and others who have the surname Clements or Clemens. Of course if John Clements could be the child of "Perkin Warbeck" then he could equally be the child of John of Gloucester and the name Clements may have derived from his connection with Pontefract.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
I've raided my data swamp :) and looked at the Clements of Cardigan who go back to the Lords of Pennardd. They have a lot of interesting connections including Sir Thomas Vaughan.
I also find particularly interesting Sir Richard Clement of Ightham Mote in Kent. He would have been born around 1480, and had a sister Anne who was married to Sir Edward Palmer. However, the most interesting person is his wife, Anne Barley. She had been married to Sir John Grey, son of Dorset. And she was also the daughter of William Barley implicated in the Perkin Warbeck plot. In fact Sir William Clement of Cardigan had also married an earlier Barley. I'm trying to tie them all up. Sir Richard Clement worked in the household of EOY and was present at the death of HT. He's easy to read about on the web.
The write-ups on John Clement say he came from Yorkshire - but this could be just another myth.
Will keep digging and report back. (Oh and Sir W Clement's Barley wife was the daughter of an Argentein). H
On Friday, 11 May 2018, 18:01:43 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Agree about the age of John Clement. I think your thoughts about John of Gloucester are very plausible too, however, wouldn't John of Gloucester be around the same age as Richard of York as he is supposed to have been born before Richard married Anne? Though I must say your evidence about Pontefract and St Clement is compelling.
Something else that occurred to me was if "Perkin Warbeck" was really Richard of York could John Clement have been the child that he is supposed to have had with Katherine Gordon. The reason that it occurred to me was that there is a story that the child, a boy was sent to the Gower Peninsular in Wales to a place called Reynoldston and that there is a tradition that a family called Perkins are descended from him. It is also very telling that there might well have been a child because Katherine Gordon was kept at court as one of E of Y's ladies and H7 never allowed her to leave. However, after his father's death H8 allowed her to leave and she married several times, one of her husbands was Sir Matthew Craddock who was Steward of the Gower under H7 and H8. She was allowed to go and live with him in the Gower. I just wondered if it was a chance for her to see the child she had given up. I don't know when the child was born but it would presumably have been in the 1490s,making him about twenty odd years younger than Richard of York. The other thing that occurred to me was that my four times great grandmother was called Catherine Clement and while I don't know anything about her family the family she married into came from the part of Carmarthenshire near to the border with Glamorgan and the Gower Peninsular. I googled the name Clement and it appears to be quite a popular name in that part of the world. What if the child was sent to live with a family named Clement and took their name? I am not suggesting that it is anything to do with my family as I know nothing about them but only that it seems to have been a name that appears in Carmarthenshire /Glamorganshire.
If you have read the comments on Matthew's blog there is a lot of interesting information on there, including from someone who is researching for The Missing Princes Project and others who have the surname Clements or Clemens. Of course if John Clements could be the child of "Perkin Warbeck" then he could equally be the child of John of Gloucester and the name Clements may have derived from his connection with Pontefract.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 11:50:00 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Mary, this is fascinating.
I've raided my data swamp :) and looked at the Clements of Cardigan who go back to the Lords of Pennardd. They have a lot of interesting connections including Sir Thomas Vaughan.
I also find particularly interesting Sir Richard Clement of Ightham Mote in Kent. He would have been born around 1480, and had a sister Anne who was married to Sir Edward Palmer. However, the most interesting person is his wife, Anne Barley. She had been married to Sir John Grey, son of Dorset. And she was also the daughter of William Barley implicated in the Perkin Warbeck plot. In fact Sir William Clement of Cardigan had also married an earlier Barley. I'm trying to tie them all up. Sir Richard Clement worked in the household of EOY and was present at the death of HT. He's easy to read about on the web.
The write-ups on John Clement say he came from Yorkshire - but this could be just another myth.
Will keep digging and report back. (Oh and Sir W Clement's Barley wife was the daughter of an Argentein). H
On Friday, 11 May 2018, 18:01:43 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Agree about the age of John Clement. I think your thoughts about John of Gloucester are very plausible too, however, wouldn't John of Gloucester be around the same age as Richard of York as he is supposed to have been born before Richard married Anne? Though I must say your evidence about Pontefract and St Clement is compelling.
Something else that occurred to me was if "Perkin Warbeck" was really Richard of York could John Clement have been the child that he is supposed to have had with Katherine Gordon. The reason that it occurred to me was that there is a story that the child, a boy was sent to the Gower Peninsular in Wales to a place called Reynoldston and that there is a tradition that a family called Perkins are descended from him. It is also very telling that there might well have been a child because Katherine Gordon was kept at court as one of E of Y's ladies and H7 never allowed her to leave. However, after his father's death H8 allowed her to leave and she married several times, one of her husbands was Sir Matthew Craddock who was Steward of the Gower under H7 and H8. She was allowed to go and live with him in the Gower. I just wondered if it was a chance for her to see the child she had given up. I don't know when the child was born but it would presumably have been in the 1490s,making him about twenty odd years younger than Richard of York. The other thing that occurred to me was that my four times great grandmother was called Catherine Clement and while I don't know anything about her family the family she married into came from the part of Carmarthenshire near to the border with Glamorgan and the Gower Peninsular. I googled the name Clement and it appears to be quite a popular name in that part of the world. What if the child was sent to live with a family named Clement and took their name? I am not suggesting that it is anything to do with my family as I know nothing about them but only that it seems to have been a name that appears in Carmarthenshire /Glamorganshire.
If you have read the comments on Matthew's blog there is a lot of interesting information on there, including from someone who is researching for The Missing Princes Project and others who have the surname Clements or Clemens. Of course if John Clements could be the child of "Perkin Warbeck" then he could equally be the child of John of Gloucester and the name Clements may have derived from his connection with Pontefract.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
That is true Mary, since the John Clements would have to be separate people, I was thinking along the lines of John Sr being John of Gloucester. If he was born around 1470, then he would be the right age to go to Louvain University in 1489 and be at the joust in 1510, whereas John Jr, who Margaret Giggs would have been his son, perhaps born around 1500.
That is interesting about Perkin Warbeck too. Whoever Warbeck actually was (I have an open mind about a few theories), I do believe that Richard Perkins from Reynoldston was the son of PW and Katherine Gordon, and that he was the connection between her and Matthew Cradock. I can't see any other reason for keeping Katherine Gordon at court other than her son, as she would be a reminder of what must have been a very distressing experience for all concerned. If there was anyone who HT might have trusted with the care of a boy with a sensitive identity, I think he could have turned to the Herbert family, especially his gentleman usher Sir Richard Herbert of Ewyas. Apart from Jasper and Margaret Beaufort, the Herberts, were the closest he had to family and an emotional connection in his early life. Despite their Yorkist connections, they had always been loyal to him. They may not have personally cared for the boy, but paid for his upkeep and send him to live with the Clement family, and Richard may have used both names. Richard Perkin may have lived in Wales and had a family there, but it is possible that he could have spent time in Kent or moved there later in his life. Another possibility is the suggestion by Ann Wroe that PW and KG had 2 children, born 1 year apart, as one of the ambassadors they met referred to their 'children' rather than 'child.' This could be an error, but if there were two sons, one could have been raised by the Herberts and one by the Clements family. Perkin's son that we know about was born in September/October 1496, as the letter to Maximilian mentions that PW and KG were in London with their 'one year old son,' (but no mention of another child - who if it existed would have been a newborn in late 1497.)
A few years ago, I read a very engaging novel called 'The Shadow Prince' by Terence Morgan. In this one, Perkin is Richard of Shrewsbury, and HT spares him (to please EofY) by switching him with a criminal who is hanged in his place, then sends him on Cabot's expedition to the New World. After many years, he returns and ends his life as the bricklayer in Eastwell, while his son is sent to another family and grows up to be John Clement. While enjoyable fiction, I couldn't see HT letting PW escape, but some people have considered Perkin's survival as a realistic possibility including the author of the Erasmus/Edward V and the Marilynn Salmon in Secrets of the House of York. However, John Clement is the right age to be Perkin's son.
So, there are few possibilities for the identities of both John Clement and Richard of Eastwell. The connections to the Grays and Barleys that Hilary pointed are very interesting, because if they were protecting a Richard Plantagenet who was Perkin's son, that would lean towards him the Perkin story being true because of the Woodville connection. Alternatively, Katherine Haute being suggested as the mother of one of Richard III's illegitimate children is also relevant, as the claim was that Richard of Eastwell was Richard's son and the Haute's had connections to that area.
Nico
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:36:56 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary, if I am not mistaken Penardd is on the Gower and is now spelt Penard. Things you can find out by speculating on this forum.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
There are so many possibilities. I think that any one of the scenarios we have discussed over the last few days could be possible. There are connections between Matthew Craddock and the Herberts because his daughter married William and Walter Herbert's illegitimate half brother.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 mai 2018 à 18:38, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :
Many years ago, before I became interested in the WOTR, my old history teacher said that she didn't think that Richard had murdered the Princes but it was possible that H7 had. I have to admit that it has crossed my mind that if H7 had found the boys alive either in the Tower or at Sheriff Hutton he might not have harmed them to please E of Y. Maybe that's why he treated EW so badly after Stoke because part of the deal might have been that she would not try to re-instate their inheritance.
There are so many possibilities. I think that any one of the scenarios we have discussed over the last few days could be possible. There are connections between Matthew Craddock and the Herberts because his daughter married William and Walter Herbert's illegitimate half brother.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Yes what you say about the rest is very true. I've never been able to completely tie in Mathew Craddock with Sir John (Craddock) Newton - they were both sons of a different Richard Craddock - but I'm pretty sure the relationship was pretty close, as was their relationship with Sir David Craddock (d. 1384 buried at Nantwich Chesire) who was Justiciar of N and S Wales. Mathew of course married Katherine Gordon. John Newton's children married, amongst others, Stillington's granddaughters.
And from them we go both to East Harptree and Sir Richard Newton of Beverstone, whose son Peter was Governor to Prince Arthur. In East Harptree we of course arrive at Stillington - who happened to be a Yorkshireman, like John Clement supposedly was. I think the Clements of Wales are linked to the Clements of Ightham but have yet to prove it. Sir Richard had a brother John, but he was married leaving an heiress daughter.
I don't know where this is going, but if you bring the Moyles in too (and they were connected by marriage also) it points to a pretty large concealment (shall we call it)? Perhaps, as you mention, it was orchestrated not by the Yorkists, but by HT. In fact that is what David Baldwin also suggested in his work on Eastwell. Unfortunately he never looked at the connections of Thomas Moyle.
Lots of work to do...... H
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 19:06:49 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I have posted this previously today but it appears to be lost. Checked up on Penardd and it is in Cardiganshire not on the Gower. I suppose it is possible that Penard on the Gower could have been part of the Lordship of Penardd. The village of Newton, now part of Porthcawl, is just a short distance from Matthew Craddock's Candleston Castle. Newton is quite an old village and would have been there when the Newton/Craddocks were around in the 15th century. So maybe they named land that they owned in other counties after their place of origin.They originated in Newton in Pembrokeshire and some of them ended up in East Harptree in Somerset. Hilary, can you confirm as I am writing this from memory?
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Read the eBook History of the princes of South Wales by George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman online for free (page 23 of 31)
H
Read the eBook History of the princes of South Wales by George Thomas Or...
Denis Larionov & Alexander Zhulin
Online etext History of the princes of South Wales by George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman (page 23 of 31) : the coll...
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 19:06:49 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I have posted this previously today but it appears to be lost. Checked up on Penardd and it is in Cardiganshire not on the Gower. I suppose it is possible that Penard on the Gower could have been part of the Lordship of Penardd. The village of Newton, now part of Porthcawl, is just a short distance from Matthew Craddock's Candleston Castle. Newton is quite an old village and would have been there when the Newton/Craddocks were around in the 15th century. So maybe they named land that they owned in other counties after their place of origin.They originated in Newton in Pembrokeshire and some of them ended up in East Harptree in Somerset. Hilary, can you confirm as I am writing this from memory?
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Yes I agree. Penardd in Welsh would be pronounced Penarth. I would imagine that it became angliscised to Penarth as double d in Welsh is pronounced th. There is a place on the Gower called Penard and just along the coast from Cardiff is a place called Penarth. So possibly they could both have connections to Penardd in Cardiganshire.
Re: Leslau Revisited
Back for a moment to Sir Richard Clement of the Mote in Kent. It seems previously have belonged to AW and the Hautes who were attainted after the October rebellions. Then in 1484 Richard didn't give it to Brackenbury he gave it to: James Haute! It's there in the CPR 7 Mar 1484.
Now isn't James the husband of Katherine's supposed mother? All this is getting very co-incidental isn't it? And I'm still struggling to find a father for Sir Richard, who we know had a brother John. H
On Sunday, 13 May 2018, 16:06:32 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary
Yes I agree. Penardd in Welsh would be pronounced Penarth. I would imagine that it became angliscised to Penarth as double d in Welsh is pronounced th. There is a place on the Gower called Penard and just along the coast from Cardiff is a place called Penarth. So possibly they could both have connections to Penardd in Cardiganshire.
Re: Leslau Revisited
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Firstly, I've looked again at the picture and I must say I find it rather disturbing but can't quite put my finger on why; it's a bit walking into somewhere where something bad once happened and you can feel it.
When you look at it again the two figures supposedly of John Clement and John Harris in the background are like sketched figures in a medieval book. In the rest of the painting Lockey has clearly copied the outstanding photograph-like draughtmanship of Holbein, but these two figures are poorly done; which suggests that Lockey put them in himself and they were not commissioned by More or put there by Holbein. We know that Lockey was not a good painter.
Have you read this:
https://petermerlincane.wordpress.com//?s=holbein&search=Go
Fascinating isn't it? What is even more fascinating is the author's subtitle that this is a portrait of the More family and the 'son of Edward V'. Now this could be a slip of the keyboard but timewise it would make much more sense, as I think we're now all saying, though I'm more with it being a son of John of Gloucester. But why would Lockey do this?
Off to do some more digging. H
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:47:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
That is true Mary, since the John Clements would have to be separate people, I was thinking along the lines of John Sr being John of Gloucester. If he was born around 1470, then he would be the right age to go to Louvain University in 1489 and be at the joust in 1510, whereas John Jr, who Margaret Giggs would have been his son, perhaps born around 1500.
That is interesting about Perkin Warbeck too. Whoever Warbeck actually was (I have an open mind about a few theories), I do believe that Richard Perkins from Reynoldston was the son of PW and Katherine Gordon, and that he was the connection between her and Matthew Cradock. I can't see any other reason for keeping Katherine Gordon at court other than her son, as she would be a reminder of what must have been a very distressing experience for all concerned. If there was anyone who HT might have trusted with the care of a boy with a sensitive identity, I think he could have turned to the Herbert family, especially his gentleman usher Sir Richard Herbert of Ewyas. Apart from Jasper and Margaret Beaufort, the Herberts, were the closest he had to family and an emotional connection in his early life. Despite their Yorkist connections, they had always been loyal to him. They may not have personally cared for the boy, but paid for his upkeep and send him to live with the Clement family, and Richard may have used both names. Richard Perkin may have lived in Wales and had a family there, but it is possible that he could have spent time in Kent or moved there later in his life. Another possibility is the suggestion by Ann Wroe that PW and KG had 2 children, born 1 year apart, as one of the ambassadors they met referred to their 'children' rather than 'child.' This could be an error, but if there were two sons, one could have been raised by the Herberts and one by the Clements family. Perkin's son that we know about was born in September/October 1496, as the letter to Maximilian mentions that PW and KG were in London with their 'one year old son,' (but no mention of another child - who if it existed would have been a newborn in late 1497.)
A few years ago, I read a very engaging novel called 'The Shadow Prince' by Terence Morgan. In this one, Perkin is Richard of Shrewsbury, and HT spares him (to please EofY) by switching him with a criminal who is hanged in his place, then sends him on Cabot's expedition to the New World. After many years, he returns and ends his life as the bricklayer in Eastwell, while his son is sent to another family and grows up to be John Clement. While enjoyable fiction, I couldn't see HT letting PW escape, but some people have considered Perkin's survival as a realistic possibility including the author of the Erasmus/Edward V and the Marilynn Salmon in Secrets of the House of York. However, John Clement is the right age to be Perkin's son.
So, there are few possibilities for the identities of both John Clement and Richard of Eastwell. The connections to the Grays and Barleys that Hilary pointed are very interesting, because if they were protecting a Richard Plantagenet who was Perkin's son, that would lean towards him the Perkin story being true because of the Woodville connection. Alternatively, Katherine Haute being suggested as the mother of one of Richard III's illegitimate children is also relevant, as the claim was that Richard of Eastwell was Richard's son and the Haute's had connections to that area.
Nico
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:36:56 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary, if I am not mistaken Penardd is on the Gower and is now spelt Penard. Things you can find out by speculating on this forum.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
As for yet another alleged illegitmate child of Elizabeth I, Lockey and Hilliard tie in with those Oxford theories about the Earl of Essex that claim he was Elizabeth's illegitimate son by Dudley.
I will have to do some more digging on all these characters too.
Nico
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 09:14:13 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, I've been meaning to come back to you.
Firstly, I've looked again at the picture and I must say I find it rather disturbing but can't quite put my finger on why; it's a bit walking into somewhere where something bad once happened and you can feel it.
When you look at it again the two figures supposedly of John Clement and John Harris in the background are like sketched figures in a medieval book. In the rest of the painting Lockey has clearly copied the outstanding photograph-like draughtmanship of Holbein, but these two figures are poorly done; which suggests that Lockey put them in himself and they were not commissioned by More or put there by Holbein. We know that Lockey was not a good painter.
Have you read this:
https://petermerlincane.wordpress.com//?s=holbein&search=Go
Fascinating isn't it? What is even more fascinating is the author's subtitle that this is a portrait of the More family and the 'son of Edward V'. Now this could be a slip of the keyboard but timewise it would make much more sense, as I think we're now all saying, though I'm more with it being a son of John of Gloucester. But why would Lockey do this?
Off to do some more digging. H
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:47:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
That is true Mary, since the John Clements would have to be separate people, I was thinking along the lines of John Sr being John of Gloucester. If he was born around 1470, then he would be the right age to go to Louvain University in 1489 and be at the joust in 1510, whereas John Jr, who Margaret Giggs would have been his son, perhaps born around 1500.
That is interesting about Perkin Warbeck too. Whoever Warbeck actually was (I have an open mind about a few theories), I do believe that Richard Perkins from Reynoldston was the son of PW and Katherine Gordon, and that he was the connection between her and Matthew Cradock. I can't see any other reason for keeping Katherine Gordon at court other than her son, as she would be a reminder of what must have been a very distressing experience for all concerned. If there was anyone who HT might have trusted with the care of a boy with a sensitive identity, I think he could have turned to the Herbert family, especially his gentleman usher Sir Richard Herbert of Ewyas. Apart from Jasper and Margaret Beaufort, the Herberts, were the closest he had to family and an emotional connection in his early life. Despite their Yorkist connections, they had always been loyal to him. They may not have personally cared for the boy, but paid for his upkeep and send him to live with the Clement family, and Richard may have used both names. Richard Perkin may have lived in Wales and had a family there, but it is possible that he could have spent time in Kent or moved there later in his life. Another possibility is the suggestion by Ann Wroe that PW and KG had 2 children, born 1 year apart, as one of the ambassadors they met referred to their 'children' rather than 'child.' This could be an error, but if there were two sons, one could have been raised by the Herberts and one by the Clements family. Perkin's son that we know about was born in September/October 1496, as the letter to Maximilian mentions that PW and KG were in London with their 'one year old son,' (but no mention of another child - who if it existed would have been a newborn in late 1497.)
A few years ago, I read a very engaging novel called 'The Shadow Prince' by Terence Morgan. In this one, Perkin is Richard of Shrewsbury, and HT spares him (to please EofY) by switching him with a criminal who is hanged in his place, then sends him on Cabot's expedition to the New World. After many years, he returns and ends his life as the bricklayer in Eastwell, while his son is sent to another family and grows up to be John Clement. While enjoyable fiction, I couldn't see HT letting PW escape, but some people have considered Perkin's survival as a realistic possibility including the author of the Erasmus/Edward V and the Marilynn Salmon in Secrets of the House of York. However, John Clement is the right age to be Perkin's son.
So, there are few possibilities for the identities of both John Clement and Richard of Eastwell. The connections to the Grays and Barleys that Hilary pointed are very interesting, because if they were protecting a Richard Plantagenet who was Perkin's son, that would lean towards him the Perkin story being true because of the Woodville connection. Alternatively, Katherine Haute being suggested as the mother of one of Richard III's illegitimate children is also relevant, as the claim was that Richard of Eastwell was Richard's son and the Haute's had connections to that area.
Nico
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:36:56 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary, if I am not mistaken Penardd is on the Gower and is now spelt Penard. Things you can find out by speculating on this forum.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
One little point, Marie mentioned in a post under Grafton that King's Lynn was AW's favourite town. Now I'm still chasing John Clement but I'm also looking at those he signed deeds with - and the Gigges family. Both take me to Norfolk and the Gigges family came from Burton Overy; which is 20 miles from King's Lynn! And at that time it was called Burton St Clement Overy, which happens to be the name of the church there. Co-incidence, isn't it? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 12:45:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for a fascinating article. There is something sombre about the Holbein/Lockey picture, and it has been proposed that they are in mourning. John Clement would certainly be the right age to be a son of Edward V. If the two characters were inserted by Lockey and not in any of Holbein's artistic notes, you do wonder why he put them in. The distant edge camouflage is intriguing, and the early part of the article does give a plausible narrative for Lambert Simnel and the Guildfords. However, later on he loses me with Andrea Doria, all those alternative identities and wild theories about Elizabeth Woodville and Henry VI.
As for yet another alleged illegitmate child of Elizabeth I, Lockey and Hilliard tie in with those Oxford theories about the Earl of Essex that claim he was Elizabeth's illegitimate son by Dudley.
I will have to do some more digging on all these characters too.
Nico
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 09:14:13 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, I've been meaning to come back to you.
Firstly, I've looked again at the picture and I must say I find it rather disturbing but can't quite put my finger on why; it's a bit walking into somewhere where something bad once happened and you can feel it.
When you look at it again the two figures supposedly of John Clement and John Harris in the background are like sketched figures in a medieval book. In the rest of the painting Lockey has clearly copied the outstanding photograph-like draughtmanship of Holbein, but these two figures are poorly done; which suggests that Lockey put them in himself and they were not commissioned by More or put there by Holbein. We know that Lockey was not a good painter.
Have you read this:
https://petermerlincane.wordpress.com//?s=holbein&search=Go
Fascinating isn't it? What is even more fascinating is the author's subtitle that this is a portrait of the More family and the 'son of Edward V'. Now this could be a slip of the keyboard but timewise it would make much more sense, as I think we're now all saying, though I'm more with it being a son of John of Gloucester. But why would Lockey do this?
Off to do some more digging. H
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:47:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
That is true Mary, since the John Clements would have to be separate people, I was thinking along the lines of John Sr being John of Gloucester. If he was born around 1470, then he would be the right age to go to Louvain University in 1489 and be at the joust in 1510, whereas John Jr, who Margaret Giggs would have been his son, perhaps born around 1500.
That is interesting about Perkin Warbeck too. Whoever Warbeck actually was (I have an open mind about a few theories), I do believe that Richard Perkins from Reynoldston was the son of PW and Katherine Gordon, and that he was the connection between her and Matthew Cradock. I can't see any other reason for keeping Katherine Gordon at court other than her son, as she would be a reminder of what must have been a very distressing experience for all concerned. If there was anyone who HT might have trusted with the care of a boy with a sensitive identity, I think he could have turned to the Herbert family, especially his gentleman usher Sir Richard Herbert of Ewyas. Apart from Jasper and Margaret Beaufort, the Herberts, were the closest he had to family and an emotional connection in his early life. Despite their Yorkist connections, they had always been loyal to him. They may not have personally cared for the boy, but paid for his upkeep and send him to live with the Clement family, and Richard may have used both names. Richard Perkin may have lived in Wales and had a family there, but it is possible that he could have spent time in Kent or moved there later in his life. Another possibility is the suggestion by Ann Wroe that PW and KG had 2 children, born 1 year apart, as one of the ambassadors they met referred to their 'children' rather than 'child.' This could be an error, but if there were two sons, one could have been raised by the Herberts and one by the Clements family. Perkin's son that we know about was born in September/October 1496, as the letter to Maximilian mentions that PW and KG were in London with their 'one year old son,' (but no mention of another child - who if it existed would have been a newborn in late 1497.)
A few years ago, I read a very engaging novel called 'The Shadow Prince' by Terence Morgan. In this one, Perkin is Richard of Shrewsbury, and HT spares him (to please EofY) by switching him with a criminal who is hanged in his place, then sends him on Cabot's expedition to the New World. After many years, he returns and ends his life as the bricklayer in Eastwell, while his son is sent to another family and grows up to be John Clement. While enjoyable fiction, I couldn't see HT letting PW escape, but some people have considered Perkin's survival as a realistic possibility including the author of the Erasmus/Edward V and the Marilynn Salmon in Secrets of the House of York. However, John Clement is the right age to be Perkin's son.
So, there are few possibilities for the identities of both John Clement and Richard of Eastwell. The connections to the Grays and Barleys that Hilary pointed are very interesting, because if they were protecting a Richard Plantagenet who was Perkin's son, that would lean towards him the Perkin story being true because of the Woodville connection. Alternatively, Katherine Haute being suggested as the mother of one of Richard III's illegitimate children is also relevant, as the claim was that Richard of Eastwell was Richard's son and the Haute's had connections to that area.
Nico
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:36:56 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary, if I am not mistaken Penardd is on the Gower and is now spelt Penard. Things you can find out by speculating on this forum.
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
"Margaret Clements
Born in 1508 niece to Sir Thomas More, in whose house she was brought up and carefully educated with his daughter in the learned languages and almost all the liberal sciences in which she seems to have made great progress. She corresponded with the celebrated Erasmus who commends her epistles for their good sense and chaste Latin.
Mr Thomas More, who wrote the life of his gt grandfather Sir Thomas More, makes honourable mention of her and styles her a learned women. About the year 1531 she was married to her tutor, Dr John Clements. They had one daughter named Winifred on whose education she bestowed the same care as was taken of her own.
Mr Anthony Wood styles Winifred as an ingenious and learned woman and says that she was married to Mr William Rastell,celebrated nephew to Sir Thomas More and celebrated writer and most eminent lawyer of his time."
This is presumably Margaret Giggs who was married to John Clements. What struck me was that in an age when women were not carefully educated in learned languages and liberal sciences Margaret Clements nee Giggs was a very unusual and lucky woman. To be commended by Erasmus must have been quite something. Of course we have no no way of knowing how true this is, however, if it is true it would be pretty remarkable for those times. Incidentally other Google pages say that Margaret and John had other children besides Winifred. Something else has occurred to me didn't one of More's daughters marry a Rastell or am I not remembering correctly?
Mary
Re: Leslau Revisited
Incidentally, that's made me stop in my tracks! The Catesbys you'll recall, were also lawyers from Coventry going back a very long way. Sir Richard Clement of Ightham was married to 'our' Catesby's sister. Richard, when king, appointed Sir John Catesby as his senior Chief Justice. He appointed as his second Chief Justice Sir Roger Townshend of Raynham Norfolk. The Townshends were related to the Gigges. We could be creeping somewhere.
I also can only find Winifred as the child of Clement. And she died childless.
Incidentally, Thomas Stillington was Professor of Divinity at Louvain at about the time Clement was there. He was Stillington's great great nephew. Small world! H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 15:27:23 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
While googling for info on the Clements family I came across this in Google books written by someone called John Platts "A Universal Biography 3d series (15th century)"
"Margaret Clements
Born in 1508 niece to Sir Thomas More, in whose house she was brought up and carefully educated with his daughter in the learned languages and almost all the liberal sciences in which she seems to have made great progress. She corresponded with the celebrated Erasmus who commends her epistles for their good sense and chaste Latin.
Mr Thomas More, who wrote the life of his gt grandfather Sir Thomas More, makes honourable mention of her and styles her a learned women. About the year 1531 she was married to her tutor, Dr John Clements. They had one daughter named Winifred on whose education she bestowed the same care as was taken of her own.
Mr Anthony Wood styles Winifred as an ingenious and learned woman and says that she was married to Mr William Rastell,celebrated nephew to Sir Thomas More and celebrated writer and most eminent lawyer of his time."
This is presumably Margaret Giggs who was married to John Clements. What struck me was that in an age when women were not carefully educated in learned languages and liberal sciences Margaret Clements nee Giggs was a very unusual and lucky woman. To be commended by Erasmus must have been quite something. Of course we have no no way of knowing how true this is, however, if it is true it would be pretty remarkable for those times. Incidentally other Google pages say that Margaret and John had other children besides Winifred. Something else has occurred to me didn't one of More's daughters marry a Rastell or am I not remembering correctly?
Mary
