Clarence Support Group

Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong.

Marie replies:

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.

I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.

Marie,

If I understand the situation correctly then, what Edward did was to try and judicially murder someone for an act that, seemingly, was required of that person in order for that person to carry out the wishes of the king? When, in actuality, it wasn't what that person had done, but rather that the knowledge acquired had apparently been shared, even if only for professional reasons perhaps?, with someone Edward didn't trust because of that person's association with George?

I know there's little proof of what Stacey's forecast did contain, but Edward's resulting actions don't make it appear as if the horoscope had provided good news. Well, to me anyway. Otherwise, why Edward's violent reaction? OTOH, if Burdet's fate was the result of it being thought he not only provided George with the horoscope's results, but also aided George by plastering Westminster with bills against, perhaps Edward's original thoughts were that all three were supporting George?

Doug

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.

I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.

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

Doug wrote:

If I understand the situation correctly then, what Edward did was to try and judicially murder someone for an act that, seemingly, was required of that person in order for that person to carry out the wishes of the king? When, in actuality, it wasn't what that person had done, but rather that the knowledge acquired had apparently been shared, even if only for professional reasons perhaps?, with someone Edward didn't trust because of that person's association with George?

I know there's little proof of what Stacey's forecast did contain, but Edward's resulting actions don't make it appear as if the horoscope had provided good news. Well, to me anyway. Otherwise, why Edward's violent reaction? OTOH, if Burdet's fate was the result of it being thought he not only provided George with the horoscope's results, but also aided George by plastering Westminster with bills against, perhaps Edward's original thoughts were that all three were supporting George?

Marie replies:

Well, this is my very clumpy old translation of the indictment:

"To be inquired for the lord King if Thomas Burdet, late of Arrow in the county of Warwick, esquire, not heeding God and little considering his due allegiance, of malice aforethought, seduced at the devil's instigation, falsely intending to exalt himself in riches, on the twentieth day of April in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth after the Conquest and at various times afterwards, in the vill of Westminster in the county of Middlesex, falsely and treasonably, against his due allegiance, imagined and compassed the death and destruction of the same King, and then and there falsely and treasonously proposed to kill the same king.

And, in order to implement this his false and abominable proposition, he falsely and treasonably laboured and procured one John Stacy late of Oxford in the county of Oxford, gentleman, and Thomas Blake late of Oxford in the county of Oxford, clerk, at the vill of Westminster aforesaid on the twelfth day of November then next following, to calculate and work of and about the nativities of the said lord King and Edward his firstborn son, Prince of Wales, and the dependencies of the same nativities, and of the death of the same lord king and prince, to know when the same King and Edward his son should die. And the said John Stacy and Thomas Blake, knowing the same false and abominable proposal of the foresaid Thomas Burdet, the same John Stacy and Thomas Blake, on the said twelfth day of November at the vill of Westminster aforesaid, falsely and treasonously imagined and compassed the death of the same King and Prince, and then and there proposed to kill the same King and Prince.

And afterwards, on the sixth day of February in the said fourteenth year, at the vill of Westminster aforesaid, the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake falsely and treasonably worked and calculated to implement their false and treasonous proposal by the magic, necromantic and astrological art, to the death and final destruction of the same king and prince.

And afterwards, that is to say, on the twentieth day of May in the fifteenth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, at the foresaid vill of Westminster, the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake falsely and treasonably worked at the foresaid arts, although, by the determination of most holy Church and the teaching of diverse doctors, it was forbidden for any liege of the lord king to intermeddle with kings and princes in the foresaid form without their will and command.

And afterwards the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake and the foresaid Thomas Burdet, at the foresaid vill of Westminster on the 26th day of May in the same fifteenth year, falsely and treasonously showed and said to one Alexander Russheton and others of the King's people that, by their foresaid calculation and arts made by the same John Stacy and Thomas Blake in the aforesaid form, the same king and prince would not live long but would soon decease, to the intent that, by the detection and revelation of this material, the people of the same king would most greatly withdraw their hearts' love from that King, and that, being informed of that detection and revelation, the same king would be taken by sorrow thereat, in shortening of his life.

And so the foresaid Thomas Burdet, moving the death and destruction of the same king (his supreme lord) and the foresaid lord prince by [sowing] war and discord between the same king and his lieges in the foresaid realm, in subversion of his law, on the sixth day of March in the seventeenth year of the reign of the reign of the foresaid king, at Holborn in the county of Middlesex, falsely and treasonably imagined and compassed and proposed to kill the same king and prince; and, for the final implementation of this their false and abominable proposal and to stir up treasons, the foresaid Thomas Burdet made and fabricated diverse bills and writings, rhymes and ballads of seditious murmurings , at Holborn and the vill of Westminster aforesaid, and falsely and treasonably spread, scattered and disseminated them on the said sixth day of March and on the fourth and fifth days of May in the said seventeenth year, with the intention that the people of the lord king wshuld withdraw their hearts' love from the same king and relinquish it, and would rise up against the same king and raise war against him, to the final destruction of that king and the lord prince, and against their allegiance, and also against the crown and dignity of the same king, etc."

(The source document is TNA KB 8/1)

So, you see, Stacey's being charged with casting the King's horoscope without permission sounds fine until you realise he was Edward's own astrologer. The entire wording, bar the dates, is cribbed from Bolingbroke's indictment, even to the stuff about the plan being for the people to withdraw their love from the King and rise up against him, and the King being expected to die of melancholy. The incident in which they told their findings to Alexander Russheton and many others has an exact parallel in Bolingbroke's indictment, where Bolingbroke and his sidekick reveal all to Sir John Solers and many others. In each case the named hearer was someone not charged, so had presumably turned King's Evidence.

Alexander Russheton was Burdet's long-suffering right-hand man - he lived in Studley, a few miles up the road from Arrow and Alcester. He may have had enough of suffering for Burdet's unpopularity, as over the Easter holidays the two of them had been set upon and beaten up in Alcester by a mob intent on murdering Burdet and, although Burdet had got away, Russheton had been badly injured and left for dead lying in the streets of Alcester (did Burdet just run off and leave him??). If Burdet was in the habit of visiting John Stacey, Russheton must surely have known about it all along as he was always at Burdet's side. Maybe he was present when the details were talked about to a new audience, but I can't believe it was news to him. Incidentally, the date given for this incident, 26 May 1475, was the date of the general muster of Edward's army in Kent.

I don't know what to make of the exact dates in the indictment - perhaps it's simply a case of Stacey having kept an appointment book.

The difference between this indictment and Bolingbroke's is the wealth of detail in Bolingbroke's about his methods, particularly with regard to the necromancy, and also the means he used to get hold of the details of King Henry's nativity so he could do the calculations as commanded by his mistress the Duchess of Gloucester. Stacey, of course, would have been given those details by the King, which is why, I presume, the indictment draws a veil over how he obtained them. You may also notice that the 1477 indictment is framed as though there was no powerful client and the three just randomly got together to bring down the King, but the implication must surely be that Edward believed Clarence to be behind it. What I imagine Edward suspected (everyone was getting paranoid by now) is that Clarence had commissioned Burdet to get the information about the nativities of Edward and his son from Stacey, and, if possible, to get Stacey and Blake to reveal what they had learned about the royal lifespans through their astrological workings, so that Clarence could then decide if the signs were good for him to make another attempt on the throne (in fact, I imagine Clarence would have had his own horoscope done as well).

If Stacey and Blake really had given Edward that sort of bad news about himself and his son, he must have been feeling very insecure, so he may well have felt his bending of the law was justified. But you can equally well see how Burdet was able to protest his innocence up to the end, and why Clarence was so furious at his execution.

Nance wrote:I have no problems with astrology, mainly because I don't consider it a predictive tool. I learned from Carroll Righter that an accurate astrological chart is primarily a roadmap, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of character. I would love to see the charts of Edward and George - and Richard, of course, for those reasons. in the time we are discussing, astrology was a very important "science," the primary focus of astronomers - as it had been for thousands of years in many diverse cultures. What we individually believe about it is not the point, here. They believed it, and the interpretations of their "experts" were seriously considered and, more often than not, acted upon, albeit privately and without the sanction of the Church. For example, begging your pardon, you'll find this among the few Author's Notes in KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries, on page 153: In 1477, astronomers Thomas Blake and Thomas Burdett, found guilty of interpreting the horoscopes of Edward IV and his eldest son, Edward, and predicting that both lives would be cut short, were executed for attempting to carry out the same. Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong.

Marie replies:

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.

I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period

Marie says:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Hilary wrote:

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

Yes, as you can guess I have also done a LOT of work on Thomas Burdet, including trawling through file after file of King's Bench records before there were any online! At one time I hoped to write a separate study on him, and on the astrology case that brought him down, but it all got too complicated. Indeed, he was no 'foolish youth' - probably in his early fifties, so far as I can estimate.

Things got complicated with Burdet because there are just so many violent incidents in the records involving him or his servants, and so many surnames appearing in them. As well as local gentry, there are also many ordinary local family names which keep popping up in these 'incidents' over the years, and I never got to the bottom of it. Thomas seemed to have a really good capacity for falling out with people. At one time he had been good friends with his immediate gentleman neighbour to the west, Sir John Rous of Ragley, but then they fell out over the boundaries between their respective hunting parks and it got very nasty indeed. What the Alcester men had against Thomas which caused them to set on him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477 I don't know. Was it connected with a quarrel with the lord of the manor of Alcester, Sir Richard Beauchamp (Lady Beauchamp's husband), or did they have a quarrel of their own with Burdet? Lady Beauchamp, incidentally, was Elizabeth Stafford, sister of the current Humphrey Stafford of Grafton (the one executed in 1486).

And then there is his marital history. Thomas had got his first marriage, to Agnes Waldieff, annulled - despite the fact that they had a son, Richard - so that he could marry the widow Margaret Hill. The church court protected Richard's legitimacy, but this had no affect on his bastardy in common law, which Thomas should have realised. I imagine Richard's inheritance was protected by enfeoffments to the use for the next decade and a half or whatever, until Thomas fell out with his son and decided to refeoff his estates to the use of Margaret Hill's issue after his death. So that started a really enormous quarrel with his only adult son, which was raging at the time of his arrest, and which some 16th century writers believed to have been the thing that finally robbed him of the support of all the other gentry in the area, making Edward's execution of him politically possible. I think it's Stow who has the touching story of Thomas's reconciliation with his son Richard as he lay strapped to the hurdle on his way to Tyburn. That story may be apocryphal, as I found a contemporary document which revealed that Richard and Thomas had actually had some sort of partial reconciliation whilst Thomas was in the Tower. Richard's furious, and eventually successful, attempts, to reclaim Arrow (which was protected from confiscation to the Crown by enfeoffment) are yet another story again, which I've never properly finished researching.

I think that Yorkist/ Lancastrian politics are probably a red herring here. It was, specifically, Burdet's unlikeable personality and his longstanding service to Clarence that doomed him.

Marie

Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

Nance, about the Stacy/ Burdet case:

Thank you, Marie! I'm really grateful for the clarification. I'm planning on revising (updating to include the events of 2012, etc.) The Commentaries and this will be of enormous help. Hope it's okay to use it.

Marie:

By all means. Glad the material will get used.

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period

Marie replied:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Doug here:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period

Marie replied:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Doug here:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...

Re George and the barrel, Doug wrote:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...

Paul added:

Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin.

Marie replies:

1. Apparently it was Colin Richmond who suggested that the butt of malmsey story may have come about through George being drowned in his bath, as manuscript illustrations show barrels as bathtubs.

2. It is true that, in the later ages of ocean-going voyages and spirits, pickling in a brandy barrel could be used as a method of preserving the body of a particularly important individual (i.e. too important to tip over the side) until they could be got back to shore for coffining and burying, but this doesn't help shed light on George's butt of malmsey.

3. I've never heard of barrels being used as coffins, Paul. Can you provide us with a source? It sounds extremely undignified for a lord.

4. George had no reputation as a boozer during his lifetime. There is simply no hint of it in the records. As far as I can make out, this is a fiction built up out of the butt of malmsey story and George's so-called erratic behaviour (which actually was extremely consistent, even if antisocial). It's become a novelists' trope.

Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro @ gmail.comOrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

1. Apparently it was Colin Richmond who suggested that the butt of malmsey story may have come about through George being drowned in his bath, as manuscript illustrations show barrels as bathtubs.

Doug here:

If the bath-tub was half of a butt that had contained Malmesey wine it tould fit the story that developed. FWIW, quite often when I see the phrase drowned in a butt of Malmesey, the word wine is omitted. If the original was what I typed, then possibly wine was added simply to describe the butt's original contents? Or is that too involved?

Marie continued:

2. It is true that, in the later ages of ocean-going voyages and spirits, pickling in a brandy barrel could be used as a method of preserving the body of a particularly important individual (i.e. too important to tip over the side) until they could be got back to shore for coffining and burying, but this doesn't help shed light on George's butt of malmsey.

3. I've never heard of barrels being used as coffins, Paul. Can you provide us with a source? It sounds extremely undignified for a lord.

Doug here:

Using casks/butts at sea to preserve bodies for later re-burial is the only coffin-like use I've ever encountered.

Marie concluded:

4. George had no reputation as a boozer during his lifetime. There is simply no hint of it in the records. As far as I can make out, this is a fiction built up out of the butt of malmsey story and George's so-called erratic behaviour (which actually was extremely consistent, even if antisocial). It's become a novelists' trope.

Doug here:

The only thing I can come up with is that George's death in some manner involved a wine butt and the myth about George over-drinking grew from there. Perhaps something along the line of Cecily's supposed declaration that Edward wasn't the son of Richard, Duke of York? A phrase gets taken out of context and begins living a life of its' own.

Doug

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

On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:50 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

Yes, as you can guess I have also done a LOT of work on Thomas Burdet, including trawling through file after file of King's Bench records before there were any online! At one time I hoped to write a separate study on him, and on the astrology case that brought him down, but it all got too complicated. Indeed, he was no 'foolish youth' - probably in his early fifties, so far as I can estimate.

Things got complicated with Burdet because there are just so many violent incidents in the records involving him or his servants, and so many surnames appearing in them. As well as local gentry, there are also many ordinary local family names which keep popping up in these 'incidents' over the years, and I never got to the bottom of it. Thomas seemed to have a really good capacity for falling out with people. At one time he had been good friends with his immediate gentleman neighbour to the west, Sir John Rous of Ragley, but then they fell out over the boundaries between their respective hunting parks and it got very nasty indeed. What the Alcester men had against Thomas which caused them to set on him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477 I don't know. Was it connected with a quarrel with the lord of the manor of Alcester, Sir Richard Beauchamp (Lady Beauchamp's husband), or did they have a quarrel of their own with Burdet? Lady Beauchamp, incidentally, was Elizabeth Stafford, sister of the current Humphrey Stafford of Grafton (the one executed in 1486).

And then there is his marital history. Thomas had got his first marriage, to Agnes Waldieff, annulled - despite the fact that they had a son, Richard - so that he could marry the widow Margaret Hill. The church court protected Richard's legitimacy, but this had no affect on his bastardy in common law, which Thomas should have realised. I imagine Richard's inheritance was protected by enfeoffments to the use for the next decade and a half or whatever, until Thomas fell out with his son and decided to refeoff his estates to the use of Margaret Hill's issue after his death. So that started a really enormous quarrel with his only adult son, which was raging at the time of his arrest, and which some 16th century writers believed to have been the thing that finally robbed him of the support of all the other gentry in the area, making Edward's execution of him politically possible. I think it's Stow who has the touching story of Thomas's reconciliation with his son Richard as he lay strapped to the hurdle on his way to Tyburn. That story may be apocryphal, as I found a contemporary document which revealed that Richard and Thomas had actually had some sort of partial reconciliation whilst Thomas was in the Tower. Richard's furious, and eventually successful, attempts, to reclaim Arrow (which was protected from confiscation to the Crown by enfeoffment) are yet another story again, which I've never properly finished researching.

I think that Yorkist/ Lancastrian politics are probably a red herring here. It was, specifically, Burdet's unlikeable personality and his longstanding service to Clarence that doomed him.

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue!

Hilary wrote:

I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue!

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

What is going on with Yahoo? I sent a reply to Marie's last post last night, and it just repeated my original message. Anyway, as for some of the 'knights' I had suspected it may have been some sort of local courtesy title rather than anything official, so thanks for clearing that up. Of course, with the more prominent people, repeated references in formal documents would suffice to confirm that they were actually knighted. I wish there was a more comprehensive directory listing everyone with some info on each one.

Nico
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:52 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Nico I don't know what's going on. I sent you a reply early this morning and it's still not come through. Messages seem to take ours, or are for some reason randomly withheld - I know it's not you, Neil! H
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 13:43:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

What is going on with Yahoo? I sent a reply to Marie's last post last night, and it just repeated my original message. Anyway, as for some of the 'knights' I had suspected it may have been some sort of local courtesy title rather than anything official, so thanks for clearing that up. Of course, with the more prominent people, repeated references in formal documents would suffice to confirm that they were actually knighted. I wish there was a more comprehensive directory listing everyone with some info on each one.

Nico
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:52 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Hi Hilary. Knights are described as such in every single official document in which they are mentioned. There was nothing fluid about being a knight - you had either been knighted or you hadn't. There could be the odd mistake in a document, granted, but I covered that in my post.

Isabel isn't listed as a daughter of William Vaux d. 1405 in the Visitation - that is my point, which I have made clearly twice before. She appears only in the Tresham section, if I remember rightly, as Sir William Tresham's wife and the daughter of a Sir William Vaux.

Marie

Hilary wrote:
Marie, I've just stumbled upon a writ for William Vaux, Esquire, of Northants & several other counties for 03 May 1452. I never found one for 1405 or anywhere there abouts. So perhaps he died much later than thought and Isabel is indeed his daughter, but considerably younger than her siblings? This would tie in with there not seemingly being a proof of age for his son, the later Sir William?
I think the Visitation is muddled, as they often are. The first writ for 'Sir' William in Nov 1460 calls him William Vaux, Esquire, unless it's a coincidental recall for his father's. In fact do we know when William 1460 was knighted because right up until 1459 he is referred to as Esquire or just William Vaux in the Fine Rolls. I haven't looked at the CPR. If he was knighted just before his death I can see the confusion. It's often assumed that High Sheriffs are knights when in fact many were Esquires.
Marie:This was not the William Vaux who is said to have died in 1405. There were three William Vaux in succession, as I'm sure you know. Almost all the genealogies on the web have the last two as knights, and I must admit I have taken this at face value although I know from the references I have found that William II (died December 1460, yes?) was still an esquire as late as 1459. I sort of assumed he was probably knighted in late 1459 or 1460 after one of the battles, but I've had another look for references to him as a knight with no success, and I'm now starting to wonder. Have you been able to find an inquisition post mortem for him? And just as importantly, have you seen any of William Tresham's IPMs? They should give the age of his heir Thomas at the time of the inquisition (although it may just say "21 and more"), so it would help us work out how far back we need to look to find evidence of his mother's name.
If William II wasn't knighted, then of course the Visitation must be wrong about Isabel's father having been a knight. I've looked at it again. It dates from 1564 and gives Isabel as the daughter of "(Sir William) Vaux", which I think may mean that the words "Sir William" are a later addition to the MS, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a glossary in that particular volume explaining the use of brackets. So it looks as though whoever gave the original information to the herald, William Harvey, didn't know any more than that Isabel was a Vaux, and whoever afterwards added the name of her father didn't have sound information either, at least about which members of the family had been knights, because only William I and William II can possibly be in the running.
William Vaux III, the one who died at Tewkesbury, was definitely a knight. According to Gregory's Chronicle he was one of those knighted by Prince Edward after the 2nd Battle of St. Albans. He married - for the first time so far as we know - in 1455.

I must have missed the first bit of the discussion about the Visitation in my stuff that got trashed, as I did the info on Isabel's divorce, so sorry. But, as we say, for Isabel to be Thomas T's mother she must have been born about the same time as her sisters. H
Marie:Not to worry. It's just I've been so pressed for time lately it's been difficult to repeat the posts. Of course, they'd only be her sisters if she was the daughter of William I and the mother of Thomas Tresham. I did find some more info last night, though. At the end of May 1441 William Tresham, Esquire, and his wife Isabel were granted an indult to own a portable altar (ref Calendar of Papal Registers, vol 9). So they were married no later than that. It's possible that the altar thing was something they put in for at the start of the marriage, as William's son Thomas Tresham was to do shortly after his marriage, but of course it's possible they'd already been married a long time. I've found it surprisingly difficult to find references to William Tresham plus a wife during his lifetime. The earliest reference I have found to William Vaux II in connection with William Tresham is 1424, when he became one of Tresham's feoffees. That could be the result of them being brothers-in-law, or it could be that Tresham came to marry Isabel later because her father was one of his associates.
Nico and I were very unsure of where some of William Tresham's Northamptonshire property came from when we looked at this earlier, and decided that looking into the history of his manors would be another important, but time-consuming, line of enquiry. What's certain is that Isabel herself was not an heiress, although obviously there would have been some sort of dowry.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Hilary,

I've just realised your count of four W. Vauxs relates to the writ for William Vaux Esquire you said in your previous post you found for May 1452. Could you possibly let me have the details?

Hi Hilary,

I've just realised your count of four W. Vauxs relates to the writ for William Vaux Esquire you said in your previous post you found for May 1452. Could you possibly let me have the details?

Hilary wrote:

Oh yeah! Thank you!

It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Oh yeah! Thank you!

It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Oh yeah! Thank you!

It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Oh yeah! Thank you!

It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Nico wrote:

I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties.

Marie asks:

Are we sure the three usually listed are really grandfather, father and son? Aren't all the standard genealogies just relying on the 16th & 17th C visitations? I find it hard to believe there were two separate William Vaux Esquires at the same period but no one at the time felt the need to distinguish them in the records - i.e.as Elder and Younger, or William of Such-and-Such and William of So-and-So. Doesn't feel right. Could we possibly have four generations of father-to-son Williams rather than three?

There is a writ of diem clausit extremum for William Vaux III, Esquire, in the Fine Rolls, as Hilary has found (dated May 1453). So an IPM would have been carried out, even if it no longer survives.

You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time.

The best way to work out who these W Vs were, and what age they were, would be to locate the IPMs and study them.

I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?

To be honest, I have felt all along that there weren't really enough generations in the accepted Vaux family tree to stretch nicely. It just felt like a bit of a pull to make them go round.

Nico:

The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:

Nico wrote:

I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties.

Marie asks:

Are we sure the three usually listed are really grandfather, father and son? Aren't all the standard genealogies just relying on the 16th & 17th C visitations? I find it hard to believe there were two separate William Vaux Esquires at the same period but no one at the time felt the need to distinguish them in the records - i.e.as Elder and Younger, or William of Such-and-Such and William of So-and-So. Doesn't feel right. Could we possibly have four generations of father-to-son Williams rather than three?

There is a writ of diem clausit extremum for William Vaux III, Esquire, in the Fine Rolls, as Hilary has found (dated May 1453). So an IPM would have been carried out, even if it no longer survives.

You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time.

The best way to work out who these W Vs were, and what age they were, would be to locate the IPMs and study them.

I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?

To be honest, I have felt all along that there weren't really enough generations in the accepted Vaux family tree to stretch nicely. It just felt like a bit of a pull to make them go round.

Nico:

The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Hi Nico, at last I'll give you my take on the Beaumonts of Gittisham.
William Beaumont, Sheriff of Devon (died 1416 IPM) seems only to have had one son and one daughter. The son, Sir Thomas (died 1450 in Hungary) was married three times, firstly to Philippa Dynham and secondly to Elizabeth Monke and thirdly to Alice Stukeley (there is some dispute over which or both of these but it doesn't really affect things).
His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
On William Beaumont's death his lands went to his brothers, firstly Philip (died childless in 1473), then Thomas (died childless in 1488) and then Hugh) died 1507 and who left one daughter Margaret who married Sir John Chichester. So the Beaumont lands in Devon went to the Chichesters. All this is pretty well documented, including a will for Philip in the Testamenta Ventusta. Interestingly though, there was a further brother, John, (died 1513) who was a Priest.
I reckon there's still room left for a bit of work on this, particularly the illegitimate line.. H



On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Marie: You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time....
I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?
Does that mean that may have had no land in those counties (ie Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk?) or any connection to them? I knew the Vaux family was connected to Northants, which is also listed, but they don't have any association with the others by themselves, which is why I assumed it was a clue to William II's mother and wife may have been. There were no manors listed in the Fine Rolls; the problem with William II is that I can't see where he fits in at all, although I assume he is originally from Northants.

Marie: Actually, the entry in Metcalfe's book of knights for the Brampton knighting doesn't give a first name. The document just says "Edward Brampton's son of Portugal was dubbed by the King at Winchester Anno [blank]" - but the entry is next to a set of knightings in 1500. There are problems, for me:1) If the name John is given in another source, then it is strange because Brampton's eldest son and heir at the time of his death in 1508 was called Henrique2) I haven't yet found any evidence of a visit to Winchester by Henry VII at this sort of period.I think we need to know more about the source - when, if at all, did Henry visit Winchester after 1486? Why does the source not give either the first name of Brampton's son or the year of the knighthood? Did the person who wrote it down really know what he was talking about? Is it perhaps a later addition to the manuscript?
1) There are discrepancies between the Portuguese records and the listing given in Thomas Beaumont's will. He lists Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane. Since he was family, I would have thought that this was the correct version. Perhaps Henry/Henrique was the heir because John/Joao died before Sir Edward, but I don't have dates for him.2) I was confused about that. I would have thought that a directory of Knights would have the Christian names of all the knights, but there are occasional gaps where only the surname is listed. There were other references to collective knightings, but no names at all, such as the reference to Richard III knighting 'many Northern gentlemen.' There are also mistakes, as John of Gloucester is referred to as 'Richard.' For Sir John Brampton, the exact date wasn't listed, but I think the place was Winchelsea.

Hilary: I can't help thinking there's an weird resemblance in WT's last journey - wasn't he going to Parliament in Northampton, he lived at Shutlanger and would have to go down the Grafton Road? And the suspect was Grey of Ruthin. I wonder if this gave his grandson an idea in 1483?
An interesting connection. I had been thinking how close the Tresham lands were to Stony Stratford.

Hilary: What's more than worrying is that nearly all the assumed facts we've challenged on topics in the last year have crumbled; and usually the real evidence has been there all along. In this case think of all the genealogy sites that are wrong and perpetuating myths! It's just too easy to repeat what are thought to be established facts only to find that they were never that in the first place.
Very true. Online genealogies are very dubious; while a good for a first reference, everything needs to be checked. A lot of these charts are derived from the work of dishonest 'historians' who created fake lineages to connect the families who hired them to royalty. Others are honest mistakes or misguided beliefs. Either way, they keep getting repeated and eventually, in the absence of anything contradictory, people accept them as truth.

Hilary: His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
If Henry used the Beaumont name, even though he was actually a Bodrugan, then it is still worth a look. There are two separate pedigrees for the Beaumonts of Gittisham. This one is on page 65 of the Hathi version, but there is another on page 63. Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, had 3 sons, Thomas (ancestor of the Beaumont's of Gracedieu), John (family tree listed) and Henry. No family details are given for this Henry, but there wasn't and indication that he was dsp either, so I thought that perhaps Thomas and Margaret were from his line. Maybe his family wasn't in the visitations because all the descendants were in Portugal.
Nico
On Thursday, 27 September 2018, 10:43:37 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, at last I'll give you my take on the Beaumonts of Gittisham.
William Beaumont, Sheriff of Devon (died 1416 IPM) seems only to have had one son and one daughter. The son, Sir Thomas (died 1450 in Hungary) was married three times, firstly to Philippa Dynham and secondly to Elizabeth Monke and thirdly to Alice Stukeley (there is some dispute over which or both of these but it doesn't really affect things).
His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
On William Beaumont's death his lands went to his brothers, firstly Philip (died childless in 1473), then Thomas (died childless in 1488) and then Hugh) died 1507 and who left one daughter Margaret who married Sir John Chichester. So the Beaumont lands in Devon went to the Chichesters. All this is pretty well documented, including a will for Philip in the Testamenta Ventusta. Interestingly though, there was a further brother, John, (died 1513) who was a Priest.
I reckon there's still room left for a bit of work on this, particularly the illegitimate line.. H



On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi Hilary,
Sorry I missed the Alcock post yesterday.

I only know the basics about Alcock, but the fact that he was Master of the Rolls when Brampton was at the Domus Conversorum was what encouraged me to take a more in depth look at Brampton, and what his relationship was with both him and Morton who succeeded him. There was quite a lot of discussion between me and Marie over the summer about the Domus records and Brampton's background, but it may have been among the emails that you didn't get. This is where the whole Isabel Pecche mushroomed from. Brampton was an unconventional resident of the Domus where he was recorded as being there from 1468-1472, with a gap around 1470 (in Flanders with Edward perhaps?). None of the others had anything like the glittering career that he enjoyed and I wondered whether Brampton's success was linked to either his association with either Alcock or Morton. I came to the conclusion that most likely Alcock (or possibly Robert Kirkeham, who preceded him) that discovered whatever talents Brampton had to offer, as Morton took over only after he left (probably when he married Isabel Pecche). I was particularly interested in possible Morton/Margaret Beaufort contacts with Brampton, and I considered the possibility that Brampton may have been some sort of spy, with the Domus Convert as his cover. However, I didn't find anything to support that and from what information there is, Brampton appears to have been loyal to the House of York all the way until his service to the King of Portugal made it in his best interest to support HVII. By this point, Alcock was also loyal to HVII.
I also read up on Rui de Sousa, who gave evidence at Setubal, almost certainly an associate of Brampton's. It was him who gave the story about the Princes being bled to death, which brings me back to Edward V. Perhaps Edward was ill and died after being bled excessively, but Richard survived.
Nico

On Monday, 1 October 2018, 14:03:03 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018, 4:48 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I don't know is this is relevant and you may have looked at in previous posts that I have not checked out. There was a Beaumont family in North West Leicestershire. The first being Robert de Beaumont, who came over with the Conquerer and became the first Earl of Leicester. The second Earl founded Leicester Abbey. They were established in Coleorton village at the beginning of the 15c. Apparently they were relatives of the Hastings family and Coleorton is only 2 miles from Ashby de la Zouche. In the 13th century there was a Thomas Beaumont who was Earl of Warwick. Some of this is from Wikipedia so I don't know how good the information is. Also on another site it said Sir William Beaumont fought for HT at Bosworth and that the Beaumonts were anti Yorkist.

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Sorry, what I was saying in a convoluted way is that the Fleetwood who owned the book was the greatx3 grandson of Edward and ROY's nurse. H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 14:16:24 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...

Thanks Hilary, that is really interesting link. Sir Richard Croft certainly had a strong Yorkist connection. He had been tutor to Edward IV at Ludlow and was member of Edward V's council. I had no idea that Thomas Beaumont's book would travel to a descendant of him and his wife, who was Edward V's nurse, inherited from a man with a name that sounded like a variation on Perkin Warbeck - coincidence perhaps, but maybe it is more personal. At that time, books were precious items and people would pass them on to those they cared about and would value them and ownership was likely to follow a chain of people who knew each other, leaving a trail back to the original owner. There were a lot of Thomas Owens, but it could be the one that was Governor of Carlisle, as that isn't too far from the next owners of the books. I assume he was Welsh; is there any info on him or where he came from? Obviously, Peter Warbrick wouldn't be Perkin himself, but there were rumours of two sons. I had always dismissed this as a mistake, but if there were two, it would make sense for HVII to separate them. Could one have gone North, while the other stayed in Wales?

Back to the Beaumonts; I think that Brampton would be more comfortable with the Bodrugan group than the Lancastrian ones. Initially, I assumed that Margaret and Thomas were from the Lancastrian Beaumonts (either Devon or Leicestershire), and considered the possibility that they encouraged Brampton to change sides and support HVII, but on closer examination that doesn't fit. Therefore, my guess is that they were from the Devon branch (Thomas previous parishes were South West), but unrecorded descendants of a younger son from a few generations back, who may have had a close association with Henry Bodrugan and his son, John Beaumont (my apologies for calling him Henry in some posts. Henry was his son.) If Thomas and Margaret were poor relations, John Beaumont may have given them assistance, and later introduced them to Brampton.
Nico





On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 07:28:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, what I was saying in a convoluted way is that the Fleetwood who owned the book was the greatx3 grandson of Edward and ROY's nurse. H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 14:16:24 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.

My problem with Perkin (I think you mean assuming he was really RoY) having been substituted on the gallows is that both he and Warwick were already locked up in the Tower - which was an even safer option- and Perkin couldn't be relied on to cooperate in living obscurely since he'd already made two escape attempts - one from court and one from the Tower. If he'd survived I think he would eventually have resurfaced, and I don't think Katherine Gordon would have been allowed to remarry. If he wasn't the young man publicly hanged, then someone would have noticed.
I do think the two executions were just what they appeared to be - Hebry's final solution. The de la Poles certainly seem to have seen it that way as they finally pressed their own claim.
Marie

That's it Mary, it was when we were talking about Craddock. I think we need one of those whiteboards they use in police procedurals!
There is of course another scenario which is that the person executed as Perkin wasn't Perkin - that HT had done a deal to make him shut up but live obscurely. That would save face with EOY and get him out of killing yet another person of royal blood.
Still digging. H On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.

P.S. Anyone heard of a list of knights who had pledged to support Perkin?
Marie

Hi,
The Thomas Owen in the Bonett case could be the same one. It sounds like piracy, but if it was the 1490s, could it have been something else?

I found a Thomas Beaumont who was a Fellow at Merton College in 1484. If it is the same one, he did hang around in academia for a while, so that does raise the question whether it was an award to a member of Brampton's family. TB's appointment was March 1499, after Perkin's capture.
Warbeck/Warbrick is an unusual name, as is Warbeck. When I had a look on Ancestry and FindMyPast, the hotspots for these names was Lancashire, with a few going towards Carlisle. The idea that Perkin had two sons was the reference from either Sonsino or Trevisano who met Perkin and Lady Katherine at Henry's court in late 1497. There is confirmation of Perkin's 'one year old son' in a letter to Maximilian from a herald, who said he had been taken to London. Since PW and Lady K were married in January 1496, that son would have been born in the Autumn of that year, when payments in James' accounts consistent with gifts to friends on the birth of their children appear. It is possible that Lady K gave birth to another son about a year later, probably just before or shortly after she was captured, hence the reference to 'children.'

After PW's execution, Lady K married 3 more times. The first was to a courtier named James Strangeways in 1512; the next to Matthew Craddock in 1517, and after he died in 1531 to Christopher Ashton. The Craddock marriage is the most interesting. Craddock's daughter married in the Herbert family and her husband was a gentleman usher to HT. That could have been how she met Matthew Craddock, but he was based in Wales, so there wouldn't have been much opportunity to get to know each other. Personally, I suspect that the Herberts were given custody of Perkin's son (later called Richard Perkins) and the connection arose from that. Very few people could claim an close enough emotional connection to Henry to be entrusted with a task of such sensitivity, but he had been raised with them and they had been loyal throughout his reign. Matthew Craddock had also fought in Rhys ap Thomas' retinue. That way, Perkin's son was placed with reliable people and far away.

The idea that PW was switched with someone else is a fringe idea and mostly found in fiction. Generally, I agree with Marie that Henry wouldn't have risked it. However, there is a margin of doubt because he did love Elizabeth of York, and if executing Perkin would have devastated her, I wouldn't completely put it past him to make a substitution, and have PW securely confined in an abbey or monastery and after the dissolution, he ended up with the Moyles in Eastwell.
Nico



On Friday, 5 October 2018, 09:49:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That's it Mary, it was when we were talking about Craddock. I think we need one of those whiteboards they use in police procedurals!
There is of course another scenario which is that the person executed as Perkin wasn't Perkin - that HT had done a deal to make him shut up but live obscurely. That would save face with EOY and get him out of killing yet another person of royal blood.
Still digging. H On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.

Hilary,
I guess I'm going to have to ponder on this for a bit! I've gotten the impression that the staffing the upper reaches of government with non-clerical appointees was just beginning to really take hold (with a few exceptions, of course) during this period so it seemed likely that most bishops would be busy in their sees and not, say, London.
FWIW, I've been re-reading Bryant's trilogy on Pepys and discovered something that hadn't really registered before; namely that, in order to have writs properly processed, a fee was paid to the person who was in charge of issuing the writ. In Pepys case that included commissions for officers of the Royal Navy and victualers and others seeking repayment for providing materiel to the Navy. Am I correct in thinking this wasn't an invention of the Stuarts, but was in operation during the 15th century as well? IOW, to get a legal writ processed, properly, required the payment of a fee to whomever had the right to issue that writ?
I ask because I also understood that members of the clergy, at all levels, also had the right to expect various, well, gratuities, in return for the performance of what was in actuality, their duties and were in addition to whatever other income the parish may have had? Which is a very round-about way of wondering how a bishop was expected to receive his share, since one almost always had to pay it, if not forward, then upward. And, more importantly, how would he know he'd received his cut, if he didn't either keep a fairly close eye on his what went on his see or, at the very least, appoint someone he trusted to see that he did?
Which also means, or so it seems to me, that we might be focusing too closely on bishops, when we should also keep an eye out on who they appointed to manage their see? More importantly, for your investigations anyway, would be who those appointees were related to; because if bishops weren't managing their sees, then whoever was would not only have quite a bit of power, but would also have quite a bit of standing in local society. And a tidy bit of money passing through their hands. Or wouldn't they? Would there be entries in diocesan records, perhaps, that might help? Are diocesan records included in the databanks/bases you have available? Just a thought and hope it's a help!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' 

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

Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to.
There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.

Nico
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:51:50 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
I guess I'm going to have to ponder on this for a bit! I've gotten the impression that the staffing the upper reaches of government with non-clerical appointees was just beginning to really take hold (with a few exceptions, of course) during this period so it seemed likely that most bishops would be busy in their sees and not, say, London.
FWIW, I've been re-reading Bryant's trilogy on Pepys and discovered something that hadn't really registered before; namely that, in order to have writs properly processed, a fee was paid to the person who was in charge of issuing the writ. In Pepys case that included commissions for officers of the Royal Navy and victualers and others seeking repayment for providing materiel to the Navy. Am I correct in thinking this wasn't an invention of the Stuarts, but was in operation during the 15th century as well? IOW, to get a legal writ processed, properly, required the payment of a fee to whomever had the right to issue that writ?
I ask because I also understood that members of the clergy, at all levels, also had the right to expect various, well, gratuities, in return for the performance of what was in actuality, their duties and were in addition to whatever other income the parish may have had? Which is a very round-about way of wondering how a bishop was expected to receive his share, since one almost always had to pay it, if not forward, then upward. And, more importantly, how would he know he'd received his cut, if he didn't either keep a fairly close eye on his what went on his see or, at the very least, appoint someone he trusted to see that he did?
Which also means, or so it seems to me, that we might be focusing too closely on bishops, when we should also keep an eye out on who they appointed to manage their see? More importantly, for your investigations anyway, would be who those appointees were related to; because if bishops weren't managing their sees, then whoever was would not only have quite a bit of power, but would also have quite a bit of standing in local society. And a tidy bit of money passing through their hands. Or wouldn't they? Would there be entries in diocesan records, perhaps, that might help? Are diocesan records included in the databanks/bases you have available? Just a thought and hope it's a help!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' 

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

Nico, you may recall the list I sent to Marie of those accused in 1495. I've started looking at them one by one. The first I chose was William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. He is linked to all the families associated with our book (except Beaumont who we still can't trace). He is related to the Booths, who had a number of bishops and archdeacons, including two former Archbishops of York. (Laurence d 1480 and William d 1464). Looking at some of the names I'm sure some of the others will be too. There were also two Dominican Friars which is interesting. All clergy were pardoned.
I'll keep working on it and keep you posted. Thanks for the info in the second paragraph.
BTW (for Marie as well) I wasn't expecting some sort of Sydney Carton swap at the scaffold, but a much earlier one before he got to the Tower so de Sousa's comments could make sense. H
On Saturday, 6 October 2018, 22:47:30 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to.
There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person.. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.

Nico
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:51:50 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks, Hilary.
What I was wondering, though, was something slightly different. I had an idea that prior to that there may have been an actual ist drawn up of individuals in England who'd pledged their support in advance, and maybe this list got shown to Henry??? But my memory may be playing tricks.

something like the list of people who, according to the Milanes ambassador writing from the French court in Jan 1474, had set their seals to a pledge to support an invasion by the Earl of Oxford, in fact.

Marie

Let's say for a minute that a child was hidden in plain sight in Lancashire and given the local name of Peter Warbrick. He was hidden by a powerful person/people, with or without the knowledge of HT, and for years he kept his head down and caused no trouble. However, as the years went by one of his 'keepers' became more and more disillusioned with the HT regime and regretted his part in ever putting him on the throne. The boy was now in his twenties and would undoubtedly draw significant support, if not initially in England, on the Continent. So he was shipped to the Continent, perhaps with the help of Brampton, who was already there and knew all the right contacts.
However, despite starting well it all goes horribly wrong. HT, whether he knows who the boy really is or not, has no option but to arrest him. But he does give him another chance. However, there's no way it can be revealed that the brother or his step-father had played a part in concealing a Yorkist heir - it was one thing to go mad and support one in later life, but quite another to have concealed him (probably with his brother's knowledge) for ten years. And at the middle of this also sits HT's mother.
So with a bit of nifty research Peter Warbrick becomes the imposter Perkin Warbeck, a foreign Pretender, whose father just happens to have been quite a well-know merchant from Tournai - and the rest is history. Now I'm not saying our Peter was necessarily ROY; he could have been an illegitimate child of Edward or Richard, but if there was one out there you can bet WS and Sir Thomas would have known where to find them after Bosworth.
Just one of my fanciful thoughts - see my reply to Marie. H
On Monday, 8 October 2018, 02:14:18 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.

I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of nowhere.

Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld, as it so chanceth.

Marie

Hi Marie (and others) I'll come back later about Warbeck later but in the meantime I've got a bit of an update on the book.
As it says in the write up it was written by William Lyndewood, who became Bishop of St David's and died in 1446. There are plenty of biographies of him on the web. He was born in Market Rasen Lincs and it was probably his brother, Walter, who was Mayor of Lincoln in 1432. He was a considerable international traveller and diplomat as well.
Lyndewood was also Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1442 and sat on the Council with John, Viscount Beaumont (died 1460). Beaumont's daughter, Joan, was the first wife of Sir William Stanley and she was also the mother of Francis Lovell. The write up says the book was printed in France, but there was an English edition printed in 1496 i.e. before Warbeck's death.
I've also been doing some research on the Spayne family (TB's mother's husband). Sir William Spayne fought for HV at Agincourt and had at least one son, Thomas. They came from Boston Lincs. And the Thomas Owen in the book came from Lincoln. John Beaumont also held large estates in East Anglia inherited from his mother. I shall keep digging. H

On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, 16:54:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.

I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of nowhere.

Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld, as it so chanceth.

Marie

PPS I've liked more closely at the illustration of the book given in the article, and I see it includes the inscriptions of Beaumont and Warbrick. Warbricke's is definitely in a later style of writing - late 16th or 17th century at a guess, but definitively not late 15th. I imagine that the date and place of printing of this copy (Paris 1501) is probably printed on a flyleaf.

I really do think this name is pure coincidence, or synchronicity if you prefer, like my grandmother dying 20 years to the day after my grandfather, or the Tyrrell's crisps being next to some Metcalfe goodies in the supermarket last week. Since Perkin was already dead when this book was printed, a direct link is not possible.

Sorry.

Marie

Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

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

Doug, Nico, Marie, I just think we can't afford to neglect anything, even though of course it may later turn out to be a dead end. We have so very little to go on.
Actually the Oxford translation is that Thomas Owen gave the book to Peter Warbrick, not the other way round. Now to own a book like this in the fifteenth or sixteenth century you had to have some esteem. 'Warbrick' is not an alumni of Oxford or Cambridge - there's no-one of that surname or anything like that suname. Warbreck manor in Lancashire was passed from the Botelers to the Freebodys in the early 16th century - so there's a logic there. The deed was witnessed by the Stanleys.
I have trawled wills, several genealogy sites and there are some Warbricks in Lancs at the end of the sixteenth century, but no Peter. Justice Thomas Owen did have a son called Peter, but that seems to be a dead end. I did even think it could be Marbreck and we have no 'ms'in Owen's writing with which to compare it. I'm just puzzled by who Petri Wabreck is so we can eliminate him.
Doug surnames were regularised at the end of the 14th century by Richard II so the 'de' was dropped.
Marie, believe me I do trawl - for up to 10 hours a day. We just have a different way of approaching things. Cheers :) H


On Friday, 12 October 2018, 15:28:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

PPS I've liked more closely at the illustration of the book given in the article, and I see it includes the inscriptions of Beaumont and Warbrick. Warbricke's is definitely in a later style of writing - late 16th or 17th century at a guess, but definitively not late 15th. I imagine that the date and place of printing of this copy (Paris 1501) is probably printed on a flyleaf.

I really do think this name is pure coincidence, or synchronicity if you prefer, like my grandmother dying 20 years to the day after my grandfather, or the Tyrrell's crisps being next to some Metcalfe goodies in the supermarket last week. Since Perkin was already dead when this book was printed, a direct link is not possible.

Sorry.

Marie

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

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

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...

By the Kinge RIGHT reverend father in God, right trusty and welbeloved wee greete yow well, and have received yo...

There are a lot of Lincoln connections here. Interesting too about the Spayne family. I suspect that Spayne is the name of a subsequent husband of Thomas and Margaret's mother rather than her own family name, but it may be helpful in pinning down a location.. As far as I know, women did take their husband's surnames back then.
As for surnames in general use, this article is quite helpful.BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past
BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

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

Hi Nico, yes I was looking for a 'Mr Spayne' second husband.
I might be able to offer you another crumb about the book (sorry Marie!) and I could have found a bishop spy for Doug!
If this is the 1501 French edition I reckon it came to TB through the estate of his Bishop Oliver King, who died in 1503. I have two reasons for thinking this:
1. King had been Edward's secretary specialising in French affairs so was likely to have had an interest in something of this nature.
2. William Cosyn, Dean of Wells and King's nephew was the executor of King's will and that of TB four years' later. He received a pardon from Henry VIII for this. I've no idea why.
I think we should pay close attention to King. After Bosworth he immediately transferred his loyalty to HT saying that God had instructed him to do so (!). He then clearly became a good buddy of HT and just think of all the knowledge he'd have had of the Yorkist court and its people - watch out Stanley! There's also a case in the NA where he complains he's been robbed of plate whilst imprisoned by Richard Duke of Gloucester. Anyone know anything about that?
Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: Richard Goule, of... | The National Archives

Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: R...

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...

By the Kinge RIGHT reverend father in God, right trusty and welbeloved wee greete yow well, and have received yo...

There are a lot of Lincoln connections here. Interesting too about the Spayne family. I suspect that Spayne is the name of a subsequent husband of Thomas and Margaret's mother rather than her own family name, but it may be helpful in pinning down a location.. As far as I know, women did take their husband's surnames back then.
As for surnames in general use, this article is quite helpful.BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past
BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

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

Surnames I think started in the 1200s, but for ordinary people could still be quite fluid in the 15thC, so a person could be known by their inherited surname, their trade, place of origin, or all three, and you often see this in indictments. The Warbreck surname site has several instances from the 16th century, all from Lancashire or thereabouts where the name arose, but there are also two Oxford alumni, neither a Peter.

Regarding the date, I see I misread, or misremembered, the second inscription in the book. It went from Owen to Warbrick, not vice versa. It reads ( allowing for the odd letter to be wrong as the resolution is poor):
 Liber Petri Warbricki ex dono Tho. Owen Lincoln. (Peter/ Piers Warbrick's book, by the gift of Thomas Owen of Lincoln).
Now, Thomas Owen was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1562 and died in 1598, so Peter Warbrick must have been given it between those two dates.
Marie

P.S to Nico and Hilary - I have downloaded an image of Thomas Beaumont's will on to my phone and can give a full transcript of the references to the Brampton's if you like - it may possibly be more detailed than the version in Somerset Wills, which will be a summary, but I can't promise. Thomas doesn't mention his books.
Marie

There is no evidence regarding Arthur until his marriage ( he almost certainly isn't the Master Arthur in Elizabeth of York's household at the time of her death) . The dates of birth suggested in Wikipedia are guesses, presumably based on the supposition that Arthur was the Lord Bastard' of 1477 - and possibly also on JAH's erroneous idea that king's widow' ( the 1465 reference to Thomas Wayte's new wife) might mean a widow who was a King's mistress. You'll recall our discussion about this on the forum and how it meant something else entirely.
To get an idea of his real probable dob you only have to look at the dates of his marriage and career.
Marie

P.s Just for Hilary - are you taking into account that in 14th c Warbrick was Warthebreke or similar? And of course if Peter/ Piers was a priest this may well not have been his birth surname.

Hi Hilary,

First to say, if I've offended you, I apologise. I didn't actually claim you don't trawl. Quite the reverse - what worries me is that if one trawls really wide things will always get caught in the net that have something in common with one's subject of study, but the chance of any relevant causal connection won't actually be very great.

I do happen to have looked at the Oliver King business for a book I'm working in, though it's not really relevant and will probably end up in an article instead. Again, sorry I can't recall the details but what happened is that King was one of those arrested in the Tower on Friday 13th June, and his goods were seized, as this was the procedure in those days. They all ought to have been returned to him in his release but he claimed that some plate (including candlesticks?) had been sold by Richard's agents to one of the city's elite merchants. I can't recall who claimed what without checking my notes, but the goods seem to have changed hands a couple of times, and King suddenly brought this case against Mayor Hill's widow and executrix Elizabeth in the late 1480s.
If you can wait till next month I can give you the full story. It may be the stuff had been sold legally to settle King's debts but I really would need to check. Sadly, I don't think it was at all uncommon for sequestered goods to go missing - look at the Thomas Cook case. Of course Richard reformed the law the following year so that the goods of those charged with sub-felony offences would not be seized before conviction, though this wouldn't have helped King.
Marie

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

I agree with you on London Marie - both Oliver King and Cosyn come from the merchant class there. I'm pursuing them in case TB was a relative. I can also tell you he wasn't related to Thomas Beaumont the salter - his will is available and he left no children. I must check whether he had a brother. I do think, looking at the dates of appointments, the fortunes of TB were tied to King. He goes nowhere after King's death. Incidentally Cosyn's father was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward.
Thanks so much for the quote. H (I wonder if Cosyn had Brampton's address and if the rings ever got there)
PS Yahoo is particularly difficult recently - I find you can't go back to insert anything which sometimes makes things sound quite terse. So apologies if they do!
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:29:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

Hi,
I know I said I'd withdraw from this thread, but this is a different topic.
The Lord Bastard reference in Edward IV's account was found by Cora Scofiekd back in the 1920s. It is payment for clothing for The Lord Bastard' to attend the wedding of RoY to Anne Mowbray in Jan 1477. Scofield assumed it meant Arthur Plantagenet, and this assumption was followed by Muriel Byrne, but Arthur's career and reference to other ceremonial occasions suggest Arthur, even if born by this time (which is doubtful) may have been too young to have taken part.
The same difficulty, I think, arises with the Perkin theory. RoY was only 3 1/2, and had to be carried and helped along through the proceedings. You couldn't easily have toddler attendants as well. I know it's done at royal weddings now, but only children of 8 and more have been involved in any 15th C ceremonies I've looked at. One day I should try to look at this doc to see if it indicates the amount of cloth being provided for this individual.
The other question would be whether the Binche Boy ever returned to England - the Binche Accounts might answer that one- or whether he is likely to have been the king's bastard - Ann Wroe had the impression he was being treated at Binche as though of yeoman status, and he is not referred to in those accounts as a bastard. Jean le Saige, the name Margaret gave him, is not a very dignified name for a royal bastard, and indeed Edward had a fool of the same name. Nor was he the only boy she adopted in this way over the course of her life in Burgundy.
I also have a problem with the Binche boy reappearing as PW because he would have been easily recognised by every member of Margaret's household.
Ann Wroe says the Binche Boy disappeared from the records there some time after Bosworth, but I think that when I looked up to find her source it was a surviving set of accounts for Binche that ends in 1485. Work to be done there one day, for sure.
Edward could well have had an older bastard who later died, or who didn't make a great career and so simply isn't known about.
It's intriguing, but I'm always wary of trying to feed every unexplained reference in the records into the story of the Princes and Warbeck. I'd rather simply keep digging in the hope that further information will turn up.
Marie

I had to hand write the passage from the will, then copy from that, and I seem to have misread my xx as xv, so the value of the rings should be 20s, not 15s.

Hi Hilary,

English *is* a Germanic language, and medieval forms are often closer to those of our Germanic neighbours than the modern forms - suster for sister, for instance.
If you google Warbreck etymology' you will see the place name is of Norse origin, like many in the North of England. The earliest references to Warbreck/ Warbrick as a surname come from the same area. So there is absolutely no mystery.

Despite the weird coincidence, Peter Warbrick can only be linked to the Warbeck business by what scientists call torturing the evidence' - something one is evidently not supposed to do.
The book is a really great find, for the light it sheds on the life and interests of Lady Brampton's brother, but it won't solve the mystery of the Princes.
BTW as a book I think it continued in demand after the Reformation because canon law wasn't ditched . I don't know much about it, but my understanding is that Anglicans kidded themselves that canon law as practised in England had always been English rather than Roman, and so simply took it over and developed it from there. English canon law texts such as Lyndwood must have been important in cementing that interpretation, I imagine.. That is why rabid reformers could still desire a book like this.

Marie

Hilary, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to get back to you yesterday, and thank you, Marie for downloading Thomas Beaumont's will. It would be interesting to see if this one is more detailed. However, for comparison, the link that I used was:

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The link should work, but if not It is in Weavers's edition of Somerset Wills up to 1530. If you are flipping through the book, TB's will is found on page 111.
Nico
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:42:13 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I agree with you on London Marie - both Oliver King and Cosyn come from the merchant class there. I'm pursuing them in case TB was a relative. I can also tell you he wasn't related to Thomas Beaumont the salter - his will is available and he left no children. I must check whether he had a brother. I do think, looking at the dates of appointments, the fortunes of TB were tied to King. He goes nowhere after King's death. Incidentally Cosyn's father was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward.
Thanks so much for the quote. H (I wonder if Cosyn had Brampton's address and if the rings ever got there)
PS Yahoo is particularly difficult recently - I find you can't go back to insert anything which sometimes makes things sound quite terse. So apologies if they do!
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:29:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move 30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing it with the town of one's birth.

Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will.

Marie

If I can help a bit on this Doug the Judge Thomas Owen whom the university think gave the book to Warbrick lived from 1542 to 1598 and came from Shrewsbury. The other two owners are William Fleetwood, Recorder of London (1538-1616) - he's from Lancashire and happens to be a descendant of the Princes' nurse and Judge Edmund Anderson, fervent Protestant (1530 - 1605) from Lincolnshire. So there would seem to be quite a gap between Beaumont's ownership and the rest. Did it stay at Bath with William Cosyn his executor who didn't die till 1525? Don't know why he would give it to Oxford - he and Oliver King were Cambridge men. H
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 21:55:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move 30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing it with the town of one's birth.

Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will.

Marie

You couldn't get married under 7 according to canon law, but in England at any rate people were interpreting the minimum age as the seventh year - ie six - which scooped in Anne Mowbray, and Edward got a papal dispensation for his son to exchange marriage vows under age.

Just to say not everybody who owned a book signed their name in it, Thomas Owen didn't sign it, after all.

Also that Lincoln is unlikely to refer to the diocese as it was a very big diocese so fairly meaningless as an address. I see no reason to doubt the Christ Church Identification of Thomas Owen, and we don't need to assume that the book was given to Oxford uni so early as this would be a ref to Lincoln's Inn in London.

The point about the date range I gave Doug for the handover to Warbrick is that it is the period during which Owen belonged to Lincoln's Inn.

I would say Christ Church has taken the current information on the book's ownership as far as it will reasonably go.

Marie

Just to say not everybody who owned a book signed their name in it, Thomas Owen didn't sign it, after all.

Also that Lincoln is unlikely to refer to the diocese as it was a very big diocese so fairly meaningless as an address. I see no reason to doubt the Christ Church Identification of Thomas Owen, and we don't need to assume that the book was given to Oxford uni so early as this would be a ref to Lincoln's Inn in London.

The point about the date range I gave Doug for the handover to Warbrick is that it is the period during which Owen belonged to Lincoln's Inn.

I would say Christ Church has taken the current information on the book's ownership as far as it will reasonably go.

Marie

Bremonger means brew-monger - it's just an old English trade name.

I saw rRobert Spayne the London scrivener in the Common Pleas cases and wondered if he could be the late lamented husband of Emme, but unfortunately he was never suing alongside a wife.
Where does the info on Emme Bremonger come from?
Marie

This book proposes that Jews were present in England in substantial numbers from the Roman Conquest forward. Ind...

Emme appears in a lot of cases Marie. She must have been married to the following:
Unknown BeaumontRobert Stone (there are inheritance challenges from his aunts)John Poliver (by whom she had a daughter Joanna who married Sir John Gaynsford)John Petit (who was alive in the 1490s)We don't know when Spayne died; I can't find a will
Here is the link to Bremonger:
C 1/106/25Description: Short title: Polyver v Wilde.
Plaintiffs: John Polyver and Emma, his wife, daughter of John Bramonger, citizen and draper of London, deceased.
Defendants: William Wilde, clerk, William Bray, Herry Wodecok, and Robert Spayne, feoffees to uses, and Hugh, son of the said John Bramonger, priest.
Subject: Tenements in Minchin Lane, St Dunstan's in the East, and St Mary at Hill; and at Gravesend, under the will of the said John Bramonger.
London, Kent.
5 documents
Date: 1486-1493Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Bremonger had four other children - Hugh (priest), Thomas, Joanna and John. His wife was called Johanna. He died in 1493. He's another one that pops out of nowhere and I can find no trace of the children later or him before. I've looked at two other Spayne wills, but they make no mention of Robert. One Richard is from Luton and has a son Bernard and the other John is childless.
These people are centred round the parish of St Mary atte Hill and are merchants. I'm pretty sure William Bray (or a Bray) features in a deed with Robert Cosyn. I think more and more that there is a link between King/Cosyn and TB. King's father was a merchant, Robert Cosyn was one before becoming Keeper of the wardrobe. Like you, I would like something which says that Emme was Spayne's wife, but Emma isn't a particularly common name at this time, and she appears in several deeds which also feature him. She would also have been pretty wealthy having had all those merchant husbands. H


On Monday, 15 October 2018, 18:04:04 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Bremonger means brew-monger - it's just an old English trade name.

I saw rRobert Spayne the London scrivener in the Common Pleas cases and wondered if he could be the late lamented husband of Emme, but unfortunately he was never suing alongside a wife.
Where does the info on Emme Bremonger come from?
Marie

Hi zzHilsry,
I don't have time to look at these in detail, but are you saying you have:
1) proof that Rmmd Bremonger was married to John Polyver at some point between 1486 and 1493;
2) evidence short of proof that in the 1490s she was married to Robert Stone;
3) surmise that she was the Emme also married to Mr Beaumont and Robert Spayne, on the grounds that Spayne was a feoffee in the Polyver case?

I don't think we can assume this, not least because:-
1) we know that by 1500 she was the widow of one Spayne (bear in mind we haven't identified her Spayne husband yet - it might not have been Robert at all); squeezing in Robert Stone therefore doesn't work at all well.
2) none of the surnames in this scenario apart from Spayne appears in Thomas Beaumont's will
3) Emma was not one of the commonest names but it was by no means uncommon.

People remembered in Thomas's will (apart from obvious clerical contacts and his servants) include:
Robert Tygo ( who was left a gilt cup with a tiger in the bottom which had belonged to his father);
John Warforde;
Agnes Reynyon and her sister Margery (and a Richard Reynyon was named as an executor);
John Tonyngton;
John Paulet and his wife.
Another executor was Thomas Grene.

We need to remember there is no complete database of inhabitants for the 15th C as there is for more recent periods. People who were law-abiding and not litigious can be mighty hard, if not impossible, to find below a certain social level.

Marie

Hi zzHilsry,
I don't have time to look at these in detail, but are you saying you have:
1) proof that Rmmd Bremonger was married to John Polyver at some point between 1486 and 1493;
2) evidence short of proof that in the 1490s she was married to Robert Stone;
3) surmise that she was the Emme also married to Mr Beaumont and Robert Spayne, on the grounds that Spayne was a feoffee in the Polyver case?

I don't think we can assume this, not least because:-
1) we know that by 1500 she was the widow of one Spayne (bear in mind we haven't identified her Spayne husband yet - it might not have been Robert at all); squeezing in Robert Stone therefore doesn't work at all well.
2) none of the surnames in this scenario apart from Spayne appears in Thomas Beaumont's will
3) Emma was not one of the commonest names but it was by no means uncommon.

People remembered in Thomas's will (apart from obvious clerical contacts and his servants) include:
Robert Tygo ( who was left a gilt cup with a tiger in the bottom which had belonged to his father);
John Warforde;
Agnes Reynyon and her sister Margery (and a Richard Reynyon was named as an executor);
John Tonyngton;
John Paulet and his wife.
Another executor was Thomas Grene.

We need to remember there is no complete database of inhabitants for the 15th C as there is for more recent periods. People who were law-abiding and not litigious can be mighty hard, if not impossible, to find below a certain social level.

Marie

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.

Sorry Hilary but I am bewildered by this proof'.

I have also looked at TNA catalogue, and didn't come up with the necessary link.

What we have, no?, is:
1) An Emme daughter of John and Johanne Bremonger who during the period 1493 to 1500 appears as the wife of London ironmonger John Polyver or Polifever;
2) An Emme who appears during the period 1475 to 1485 as the wife of John Petyte and widow of Robert Stone. Robert Spayne the scrivener had been one of Stone's executors.

We have absolutely nothing that l have seen to indicate that even these two were the same person. I very much doubt they were. And we have no documents at all indicating that either was ever married to a Beamonde or a Spayne. A further marriage to Robert Spayne for Emma Bremonger would seem almost impossible as Mr Spayne was dead by 1500.

It absolutely can't be assumed that everyone who existed will turn up in the records, still less easily available online catalogued ones. This is particularly true of women. Had it not been for the Chancery cases you would not have found Emma Bremonger and Emme Stone-Petyte.

Please tell me if I've missed something.

PS If you want another of life's little coincidences, the old lady who lived three doors up from us when I was a child was called Em Pettit.

Hilary, that is an interesting find about Emma Bremonger and Spayne. St. Clement's Church in Eastcheap, Thomas Beaumont's old parish just slightly Northwest of St. Mary at Hill, where these people in the court case lived. The reference to Kent also drew my attention, because when I looked up the name 'Spayne' a lot of the hits were in Kent.
I have read excerpts from that book the Early Jews and Muslims of England, and found it quite intriguing, although I never got around actually ordering the book. I would have assumed that Peche/Pecche was an occupational surname for a fisherman or fishmonger, and I wouldn't have thought the other names seemed particularly Jewish, but there must be an argument for it that you can't see in the online edition. Another proposed meaning for Peche is sin/sinner in French; perhaps that is that is some reference to the family being Jewish, not necessarily sinful, but not fully accepted by the Christian community. However, if it was anti-semitic slur, I can't imagine the family continuing to use it. If Emma's family or the Peches were Jewish, I would have thought they must have converted several generations before Brampton arrived. It is unfortunate the the medieval Jewish community in England is so under-researched, and probably underestimated. After the conquest, many prominent families may have had Jewish origins, as Normandy was a centre of medieval Jewish culture. It would be fascinating if there was a crypto Jewish community that Brampton was linked to through the Pecches and Margaret Beaumont. I think Brampton also - publicly at least - would have remained Christian, as otherwise his royal mentors in both England and Portugal would have been displeased.
My guess is that Thomas and Margaret's family were London merchants, but perhaps with some connection to the South West Beaumonts. There are indication of some wealth from the jewellery listed in the will. As for the Pecches, there was another family in Dorset. I don't know if they were related to the Lullingstone group.
Another thing I noticed about Thomas Beaumont is that he was promoted just after the Ralph Wilford affair. Unfortunately, so little is known about that episode, but again the Wilford family were London merchants. I think Wilford's father was said to have been a cordwainer from around Bishopsgate - not too far from this group. Could Thomas Beaumont have given information about this?
I was also wondering if William Bray was related to Reggie.

Nico


On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 17:57:24 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

On Thursday, October 18, 2018, 7:24 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Excellent! Thanks, Nico.

It's as we suspected but it means we can now confidently narrow the field of search without worrying we might be missing something.

We need to bear in mind that the medieval diocese of London included not just the city of London but also the rest of Middlesex, Essex and much of Hertfordshire.

The university seems to have kept a record of students' home dioceses but no further details of their origins, because that is all Emden gives except maybe when parents' identities are otherwise known.

So whoever Beaumont the father was, he died no earlier than 1463.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

To be fair, you talked about having given me the proofs and of that Emme Bremonger must have married all these people.

I don't at all see why we should assume Petit to have been of Jewish descent. The book says it is making assumptions based on trade. But no way, for instance, were all goldsmiths of Jewish descent. There are some obvious surnames of Jewish origin, I know, such as Abrams, Isaacs, etc, but I suspect this book has been far too lax in its criteria.

No,we rarely get proof but that doesn't mean we can pretend to proof that isn't there or give up on the search without combing every possible source. Research takes a very long time.

For me I'm afraid your scenario doesn't work well even as an hypothesis - the dates don't fit for Emme Bramonger, and we have nothing at all to link her to the other Emme or to Thomas's old mum.. I stand to be proved wrong, of course, but then it will be because it has been proved.

Have you considered that TB might have acquired his wealth as a result of his career? Perhaps a better clue to his family wealth would be the coral rosary and muskball of unstated material which his mother had once given to him and which he returned to her in his will.
Even if the family was wealthy it wouldn't prove a thing. I downloaded the will of the wealthy London salted Thomas B who died in the late 1450s - widower of two Alices.

We don't even know for sure that the family was from London. We don't have evidence of the identity of either Mr Beamont or Mr Spayne. We're a very long ways off.

We'll have to agree to differ.

Marie

Hi Nico,
According to Athenae Oxoniensis, the supplication in 1500 was for a degree in divinity, but it isn't recorded whether he was successful.
St Clement Danes sounds more plausible- it was the same general area as the debtor he and his mother were suing in zCommon Pleas in 1500. It may not necessarily be where he was born, of course, but it's just worth noting that it is the opposite side of London from Emmas Bremanger and Stone.
And also worth noting that the diocese of London, just as it rules in Middx and Essex, rules out certain places near London such as Kent and even Southwark.
I'm in two minds whether to go by the names of the Brzmptons' children as they could have named the eldest for King John of Portugal, the next two for King Henry VII and Q Elizabeth, etc, but there does seem to have been a John Beaumont active in the city at about the right time, although I can't look into it at the moment.
Marie

Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme..
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

One other little point which may be entirely co-incidental - the manor of Alveston belonged to the Lords Beaumont. H
On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 18:36:24 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme..
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas.. Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

I have also thought that John, Henry and Elizabeth could have been named after the Kings and Queens of that name. In the Portuguese royal family there is also a Jorge, Maria and Joana, which accounts for the other children. No Emme, Thomas, Edward or Margaret, so they probably went with their own choices.
Interesting about Alveston and the Lords Beaumont. I looked up British History Online, and it jumped from around 1300 to the Reformation, so there was no mention the Beaumonts there, but they must be in that gap. I did think that appointment stood out from all the others geographically. Maybe it was the Lancastrian link that I had a suspicion about. However, I think that Margaret and Thomas were the descended from younger sons of younger sons who went to London, but maybe that is their Beaumont home. St. Clement Danes is further from the area where the merchants lived. Also, at that time, it doesn't seem to have been as prestigious as it is now. He could have been from that part of London, or it could just have been where he was sent.

Was it usual for someone to have their first church appointment at age 31, after spending over a decade in academia? He does seem to getting prestige appointments rather quickly. Of course, that could be from his own merits, but it is worth noting that they appear one after another from the mid 1490s, when Brampton was clearly co-operating with Henry.
It was the name Spayne that drew me to Kent. There is a Beaumont family there, but it isn't clear how or if they are related to other Beaumonts. Spayne is centered around Elham and the surrounding area, not far from Eastwell and John Haute at Waltham. It could all be coincidence, but I will keep digging.
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 10:58:27 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

One other little point which may be entirely co-incidental - the manor of Alveston belonged to the Lords Beaumont. H
On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 18:36:24 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme..
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas.... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas..... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

If you just google it you'll find it as part of the estates of Henry Beaumont (d 1369) . I've seen his IPM previously but BHOL seems to be playing up since its revamp and it's not as easy to find stuff without ploughing through all the IPMs of that year. You're thinking of William Spayne? Yes I saw him too. It's really rather an uncommon surname.
The only other thing that came to me about Alveston is that it made Thomas Bonaunt realise he had an aristocratic name so he made sure it was always spelled properly in future. You know a bit like Tess of the D'Urbevilles.
I reckon you're right about the names. It was apparently very important to Brampton that he was Portugese and he did go on diplomatic missions for the King. And of course a tribute to the King here who helped him get that recognition. Back to digging. H



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:42:44 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []

<> wrote:

I have also thought that John, Henry and Elizabeth could have been named after the Kings and Queens of that name. In the Portuguese royal family there is also a Jorge, Maria and Joana, which accounts for the other children. No Emme, Thomas, Edward or Margaret, so they probably went with their own choices.
Interesting about Alveston and the Lords Beaumont. I looked up British History Online, and it jumped from around 1300 to the Reformation, so there was no mention the Beaumonts there, but they must be in that gap. I did think that appointment stood out from all the others geographically. Maybe it was the Lancastrian link that I had a suspicion about. However, I think that Margaret and Thomas were the descended from younger sons of younger sons who went to London, but maybe that is their Beaumont home. St. Clement Danes is further from the area where the merchants lived. Also, at that time, it doesn't seem to have been as prestigious as it is now. He could have been from that part of London, or it could just have been where he was sent.

Was it usual for someone to have their first church appointment at age 31, after spending over a decade in academia? He does seem to getting prestige appointments rather quickly. Of course, that could be from his own merits, but it is worth noting that they appear one after another from the mid 1490s, when Brampton was clearly co-operating with Henry.
It was the name Spayne that drew me to Kent. There is a Beaumont family there, but it isn't clear how or if they are related to other Beaumonts. Spayne is centered around Elham and the surrounding area, not far from Eastwell and John Haute at Waltham. It could all be coincidence, but I will keep digging.
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 10:58:27 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

One other little point which may be entirely co-incidental - the manor of Alveston belonged to the Lords Beaumont. H
On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 18:36:24 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme..
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas...... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas....... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas....... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas........ Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Dear Hilary,

I've not disappeared because I'm upset. I've been without internet and fully occupied since Friday.

It's not just that we work in a different way. We are engaged in different activities and I've thought about it and concluded that those activities are not compatible with each other and so we are bound to frustrate each other's efforts if we are both engaged simultaneously on looking at the same individual or event. I think your question about whether I wasn't pleased with the results of your Woodville link theory because it brought us closer to a link between Brampton and RoY said it all. I'm absolutely not motivated by trying to prove anything. I am only interested in verified facts because the truth - whatever it turns out to be - is all that matters. So when you make a statement or indicate that you have proved something I get my hopes up and I see no option but to ask you for your sources and check them for myself. As you know, this has been extremely difficult for me recently, and it is never easy as I am engaged in so much else. If claims aren't reliable then everything from there on will be at fault. - for the process in which I am engaged. So I've given the matter a lot of thought and I've decided to bow out.. I will miss the forum a lot - I have been a member for 15 years - but I think it's best.

Just before I go , though, to answer one or two questions that have popped up:-

1) The 1500 court case was in Common Pleas. You can find it amongst the CP40 files on the AALT website, which hosts images of files in TNA which have a legal angle to them. There is a modern index for some of the files, which is where I found the case initially. The index gives the relevant image numbers, so you can then look the case up.

2) Emme is referred to in this case as Emma Spayne vidua (widow) so she did not at that time have a living husband, Spayne or otherwise.

3) I found quite a number of Spaynes in the records (the CP 40 indexes are a very good source of names), and they seemed to come from all over.

4) I've seen the surname spelled as Spaigne in the early 1400s.

Warmest wishes to everybody,
Marie

Thanks Marie, I do hope you reconsider about the forum. Your contributions have been invaluable.
Best wishes, Nico

On Tuesday, 23 October 2018, 11:26:01 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Hilary,

I've not disappeared because I'm upset. I've been without internet and fully occupied since Friday.

It's not just that we work in a different way. We are engaged in different activities and I've thought about it and concluded that those activities are not compatible with each other and so we are bound to frustrate each other's efforts if we are both engaged simultaneously on looking at the same individual or event. I think your question about whether I wasn't pleased with the results of your Woodville link theory because it brought us closer to a link between Brampton and RoY said it all. I'm absolutely not motivated by trying to prove anything. I am only interested in verified facts because the truth - whatever it turns out to be - is all that matters. So when you make a statement or indicate that you have proved something I get my hopes up and I see no option but to ask you for your sources and check them for myself. As you know, this has been extremely difficult for me recently, and it is never easy as I am engaged in so much else. If claims aren't reliable then everything from there on will be at fault. - for the process in which I am engaged. So I've given the matter a lot of thought and I've decided to bow out.. I will miss the forum a lot - I have been a member for 15 years - but I think it's best.

Just before I go , though, to answer one or two questions that have popped up:-

1) The 1500 court case was in Common Pleas. You can find it amongst the CP40 files on the AALT website, which hosts images of files in TNA which have a legal angle to them. There is a modern index for some of the files, which is where I found the case initially. The index gives the relevant image numbers, so you can then look the case up.

2) Emme is referred to in this case as Emma Spayne vidua (widow) so she did not at that time have a living husband, Spayne or otherwise.

3) I found quite a number of Spaynes in the records (the CP 40 indexes are a very good source of names), and they seemed to come from all over.

4) I've seen the surname spelled as Spaigne in the early 1400s.

Warmest wishes to everybody,
Marie

Hi, Pamela, Marie & Everyone 

I agree with Pamela. I am interested, more or less casually, in Richard III, but I still get all the list messages and try to stay up with the threads. I don't have a clue as to who is right (or more right) in this dispute, if dispute it is. But I would say that if something crops up that may not be exactly as presented to the group, having someone here who can say, Well, that's not exactly right, and here is why it's not. Is more helpful to all of us amateurs.

I know things are difficult for you, Marie, but think about whether there is some way that you can stay here and present your views and still maintain your equilibrium. I would certainly appreciate that, if it can be arranged.

Take care,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

I agree with Nico. I am not a researcher but I enjoy the finds, and read with eager enjoyment. Seeing someone decide to leave lessens the forum.

On Oct 23, 2018, at 6:41 AM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Marie, I do hope you reconsider about the forum. Your contributions have been invaluable.
Best wishes, Nico

On Tuesday, 23 October 2018, 11:26:01 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Hilary,

I've not disappeared because I'm upset. I've been without internet and fully occupied since Friday.

It's not just that we work in a different way. We are engaged in different activities and I've thought about it and concluded that those activities are not compatible with each other and so we are bound to frustrate each other's efforts if we are both engaged simultaneously on looking at the same individual or event. I think your question about whether I wasn't pleased with the results of your Woodville link theory because it brought us closer to a link between Brampton and RoY said it all. I'm absolutely not motivated by trying to prove anything. I am only interested in verified facts because the truth - whatever it turns out to be - is all that matters. So when you make a statement or indicate that you have proved something I get my hopes up and I see no option but to ask you for your sources and check them for myself. As you know, this has been extremely difficult for me recently, and it is never easy as I am engaged in so much else. If claims aren't reliable then everything from there on will be at fault. - for the process in which I am engaged. So I've given the matter a lot of thought and I've decided to bow out.. I will miss the forum a lot - I have been a member for 15 years - but I think it's best.

Just before I go , though, to answer one or two questions that have popped up:-

1) The 1500 court case was in Common Pleas. You can find it amongst the CP40 files on the AALT website, which hosts images of files in TNA which have a legal angle to them. There is a modern index for some of the files, which is where I found the case initially. The index gives the relevant image numbers, so you can then look the case up.

2) Emme is referred to in this case as Emma Spayne vidua (widow) so she did not at that time have a living husband, Spayne or otherwise.

3) I found quite a number of Spaynes in the records (the CP 40 indexes are a very good source of names), and they seemed to come from all over.

4) I've seen the surname spelled as Spaigne in the early 1400s.

Warmest wishes to everybody,
Marie

Thanks Marie, I do hope you reconsider about the forum. Your contributions have been invaluable.
Best wishes, Nico

On Tuesday, 23 October 2018, 11:26:01 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Hilary,

I've not disappeared because I'm upset. I've been without internet and fully occupied since Friday.

It's not just that we work in a different way. We are engaged in different activities and I've thought about it and concluded that those activities are not compatible with each other and so we are bound to frustrate each other's efforts if we are both engaged simultaneously on looking at the same individual or event. I think your question about whether I wasn't pleased with the results of your Woodville link theory because it brought us closer to a link between Brampton and RoY said it all. I'm absolutely not motivated by trying to prove anything. I am only interested in verified facts because the truth - whatever it turns out to be - is all that matters. So when you make a statement or indicate that you have proved something I get my hopes up and I see no option but to ask you for your sources and check them for myself. As you know, this has been extremely difficult for me recently, and it is never easy as I am engaged in so much else. If claims aren't reliable then everything from there on will be at fault. - for the process in which I am engaged. So I've given the matter a lot of thought and I've decided to bow out... I will miss the forum a lot - I have been a member for 15 years - but I think it's best.i

Just before I go , though, to answer one or two questions that have popped up:-

1) The 1500 court case was in Common Pleas. You can find it amongst the CP40 files on the AALT website, which hosts images of files in TNA which have a legal angle to them. There is a modern index for some of the files, which is where I found the case initially. The index gives the relevant image numbers, so you can then look the case up.

2) Emme is referred to in this case as Emma Spayne vidua (widow) so she did not at that time have a living husband, Spayne or otherwise.

3) I found quite a number of Spaynes in the records (the CP 40 indexes are a very good source of names), and they seemed to come from all over.

4) I've seen the surname spelled as Spaigne in the early 1400s.

Warmest wishes to everybody,
Marie

Hi all,

Thanks for the positive feedback - it meant a lot.

I don't want to make a big song and dance, and I surely agree that discussing theories about the Princes is good. Just as long as we know what a particular conversation is about, and it's clear if it's splitting so that different members don't pull the conversation in chalk and cheese directions.

It's good if it's made clear up front whether a statement posted is a known fact, a newly discovered fact, a hunch based on something, or a possibly wild idea, etc, and exactly what it's based on, and if it's a fact whether it has a provable link to the subject under discussion. Mostly that is done quite instinctively, in which case absolutely no problem.

I really am too busy at the moment to get involved in discussiions, and I do think a good break is a good idea anyway, but I promise I will have a think about coming back when things settle down.

Best,
Marie

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas......... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Hi Nico, sorry to be so long coming back on this. As you know BHOL has been having its problems.
I have found an earlier Thomas Bonauntre in London in the 1380s. He was a rug/tapistry maker and was a sheriff of London, so is probably the father of John and Thomas the chaundlers (families did seem to vary in their choice of trade). Did you notice that there is also a William Brampton, sheriff, and 'writer in the Court hand' at about this time? Robert Spayne was also a 'writer in the Court hand'.
If Thomas Bonauntre is an ancestor then he must have been born about 1350, so we're going a long way back? I still wander whether there is some confusion in the name and our Thomas chose the Lords Beaumont variant? Interesting that John and Richard in 1490 were still being spelled as Bonaunt.
FWIW one wet Saturday I went through all the London wills in BHOL and can't find a single merchant with a daughter Emma/Emme, apart from Emme Bomanger. But they of course are not complete.
With regards to Kent, I think it was Ian Mortimer who said that it was regarded with suspicion by the rest of the country. Something to do with both the accent and the tendency to rebel. I would agree it has more than the usual inter-familial marriages, a bit like Yorkshire, so if you were a Woodville in 1483 it was easy to mobilise. Didn't Anthony have a pad at Ightham?
What is interesting is that by 1507 there had been a lot more integration between the Kent gentry and the London elite. So with all this we have three stages:
1) 1483 Woodville mobilisation (and failure)
2) Post Bosworth - old enemies like Cis and EW potentially regroup to salvage what remains of the HOY
3) 1495 - they are gone and there is a growing other group (at home and abroad) who are just longing to get rid of HT who is now seriously more unpopular than any Yorkist king ever was. You didn't have to be a traditional Yorkist to hope for an alternative but it would be useful to produce one. Certainly Simon Mountfort falls into this category, as do the Scottish, the French ........ H

On Monday, 22 October 2018, 14:46:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas.......... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Hi Hilary,
I'm pleased to see the forum back. I was getting concerned it might disappear.
There are so many spellings of Beaumont. The Emden book has about 20 Thomas' entry. I think that these Bonaunts could be the right ones for Thomas and Margaret. Interesting too, that there are no other Emme/Emmas, so Ms Bremonger remains a good candidate. I hadn't come across William Brampton and Robert Spayne. When did they live? If it was 15th century, Brampton was probably the Norfolk branch, but they also had Yorkist connections and at least two were Warbeck supporters.

I was surprised to find so many families in Kent with such strong connections to the House of York and the Woodvilles, and the locations are suggestive of a Yorkish social network. I don't know if Anthony had his own place at Ightham, but his aunt married into the Hautes who lived at Ightham.. If Thomas Beaumont maintained any connections with Kent, he was well placed to keep an eye on these people. The Wilford affair is very murky, but clearly it was serious. Fabyan and Vergil give very different accounts. Fabyan claims the activity was in Kent, whereas Vergil says Norfolk. Since Fabyan had less of a vested interest in writing to please HT, and probably wrote his account closer to the time, I'm inclined to think his version was correct.
Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 11:54:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, sorry to be so long coming back on this. As you know BHOL has been having its problems.
I have found an earlier Thomas Bonauntre in London in the 1380s. He was a rug/tapistry maker and was a sheriff of London, so is probably the father of John and Thomas the chaundlers (families did seem to vary in their choice of trade). Did you notice that there is also a William Brampton, sheriff, and 'writer in the Court hand' at about this time? Robert Spayne was also a 'writer in the Court hand'.
If Thomas Bonauntre is an ancestor then he must have been born about 1350, so we're going a long way back? I still wander whether there is some confusion in the name and our Thomas chose the Lords Beaumont variant? Interesting that John and Richard in 1490 were still being spelled as Bonaunt.
FWIW one wet Saturday I went through all the London wills in BHOL and can't find a single merchant with a daughter Emma/Emme, apart from Emme Bomanger. But they of course are not complete.
With regards to Kent, I think it was Ian Mortimer who said that it was regarded with suspicion by the rest of the country. Something to do with both the accent and the tendency to rebel. I would agree it has more than the usual inter-familial marriages, a bit like Yorkshire, so if you were a Woodville in 1483 it was easy to mobilise. Didn't Anthony have a pad at Ightham?
What is interesting is that by 1507 there had been a lot more integration between the Kent gentry and the London elite. So with all this we have three stages:
1) 1483 Woodville mobilisation (and failure)
2) Post Bosworth - old enemies like Cis and EW potentially regroup to salvage what remains of the HOY
3) 1495 - they are gone and there is a growing other group (at home and abroad) who are just longing to get rid of HT who is now seriously more unpopular than any Yorkist king ever was. You didn't have to be a traditional Yorkist to hope for an alternative but it would be useful to produce one. Certainly Simon Mountfort falls into this category, as do the Scottish, the French ........ H

On Monday, 22 October 2018, 14:46:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas........... Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Hi Nico, No, as you probably know, BHOL and the NA seemed to be having trouble with their search engines for about a week so that knocked me back.
Here's where I've got to:
The earliest Bonauntre/Beaumond I can find in London so far is Tapicer Thomas who lived at St Dionysia Backchurch (interesting JB 1417 has daughter Dionysia) who died in 1394 and conveniently left a will. His parents were William and Agnes, he had three children, William, John and John (the younger), two of whom were certainly tapicers. He also had a brother John (our John of 1417)? He had land in Chigwell Essex.
Then, yesterday I found a will for Richard Beaumond, JB's son (it is labelled 'Joan' in the NA). It's very short and he died in 1425, with no mention of a wife or heirs but his executors are John Middleton & Philip Malpas, so he must be our man. That rules him out as 'kin' of Thomas salter in 1457. Adam Beaumond, his brother, who was given lands at Billingsgate I can't find so far. I'm also certain JB's original will in Latin mentions another child Robert, and there is a Robert Beaumond around in London up to the 1450s. I wonder if Richard in salter's will is his son and perhaps the father of our Thomas? More work!
The William Brampton MP died in London in 1406 was quite famous (you can read his biography in hpol). He came from the Norfolk Bramptons as he left money to a church in Norfolk. His son James seems to have had 3 children - John, another stockfishmonger, who died circa 1472 and was also an MP, Richard a stockfishmonger, died after 1469 and William, who could be our 'writer of the court hand'. That's as far as I've got, but there do seem to have been Bramptons in London after Thomas was born.
BTW the only other Adam Beaumont I've found was the son of Henry Beaumont of Whittley Beaumont in Yorkshire, brother of Richard. He would have been born around 1390 and was the grandson of Henry Beaumont, 3 Baron Beaumont and Margaret De Vere.
Of course none of this is helped by the numerous variations on the name. Did you get anywhere with AALT and Emme Spayne case, I keep looking but there are so many to go through? H


On Tuesday, 6 November 2018, 20:46:12 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I'm pleased to see the forum back. I was getting concerned it might disappear.
There are so many spellings of Beaumont. The Emden book has about 20 Thomas' entry. I think that these Bonaunts could be the right ones for Thomas and Margaret. Interesting too, that there are no other Emme/Emmas, so Ms Bremonger remains a good candidate. I hadn't come across William Brampton and Robert Spayne. When did they live? If it was 15th century, Brampton was probably the Norfolk branch, but they also had Yorkist connections and at least two were Warbeck supporters.

I was surprised to find so many families in Kent with such strong connections to the House of York and the Woodvilles, and the locations are suggestive of a Yorkish social network. I don't know if Anthony had his own place at Ightham, but his aunt married into the Hautes who lived at Ightham.. If Thomas Beaumont maintained any connections with Kent, he was well placed to keep an eye on these people. The Wilford affair is very murky, but clearly it was serious. Fabyan and Vergil give very different accounts. Fabyan claims the activity was in Kent, whereas Vergil says Norfolk. Since Fabyan had less of a vested interest in writing to please HT, and probably wrote his account closer to the time, I'm inclined to think his version was correct.
Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 11:54:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, sorry to be so long coming back on this. As you know BHOL has been having its problems.
I have found an earlier Thomas Bonauntre in London in the 1380s. He was a rug/tapistry maker and was a sheriff of London, so is probably the father of John and Thomas the chaundlers (families did seem to vary in their choice of trade). Did you notice that there is also a William Brampton, sheriff, and 'writer in the Court hand' at about this time? Robert Spayne was also a 'writer in the Court hand'.
If Thomas Bonauntre is an ancestor then he must have been born about 1350, so we're going a long way back? I still wander whether there is some confusion in the name and our Thomas chose the Lords Beaumont variant? Interesting that John and Richard in 1490 were still being spelled as Bonaunt.
FWIW one wet Saturday I went through all the London wills in BHOL and can't find a single merchant with a daughter Emma/Emme, apart from Emme Bomanger. But they of course are not complete.
With regards to Kent, I think it was Ian Mortimer who said that it was regarded with suspicion by the rest of the country. Something to do with both the accent and the tendency to rebel. I would agree it has more than the usual inter-familial marriages, a bit like Yorkshire, so if you were a Woodville in 1483 it was easy to mobilise. Didn't Anthony have a pad at Ightham?
What is interesting is that by 1507 there had been a lot more integration between the Kent gentry and the London elite. So with all this we have three stages:
1) 1483 Woodville mobilisation (and failure)
2) Post Bosworth - old enemies like Cis and EW potentially regroup to salvage what remains of the HOY
3) 1495 - they are gone and there is a growing other group (at home and abroad) who are just longing to get rid of HT who is now seriously more unpopular than any Yorkist king ever was. You didn't have to be a traditional Yorkist to hope for an alternative but it would be useful to produce one. Certainly Simon Mountfort falls into this category, as do the Scottish, the French ........ H

On Monday, 22 October 2018, 14:46:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas............ Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

There are sometimes 10 to a page in the category.
This also might help:
Google Groups

Google Groups

Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experienc...

The earliest Bonauntre/Beaumond I can find in London so far is Tapicer Thomas who lived at St Dionysia Backchurch (interesting JB 1417 has daughter Dionysia) who died in 1394 and conveniently left a will. His parents were William and Agnes, he had three children, William, John and John (the younger), two of whom were certainly tapicers. He also had a brother John (our John of 1417)? He had land in Chigwell Essex.
Then, yesterday I found a will for Richard Beaumond, JB's son (it is labelled 'Joan' in the NA). It's very short and he died in 1425, with no mention of a wife or heirs but his executors are John Middleton & Philip Malpas, so he must be our man. That rules him out as 'kin' of Thomas salter in 1457. Adam Beaumond, his brother, who was given lands at Billingsgate I can't find so far. I'm also certain JB's original will in Latin mentions another child Robert, and there is a Robert Beaumond around in London up to the 1450s. I wonder if Richard in salter's will is his son and perhaps the father of our Thomas? More work!
The William Brampton MP died in London in 1406 was quite famous (you can read his biography in hpol). He came from the Norfolk Bramptons as he left money to a church in Norfolk. His son James seems to have had 3 children - John, another stockfishmonger, who died circa 1472 and was also an MP, Richard a stockfishmonger, died after 1469 and William, who could be our 'writer of the court hand'. That's as far as I've got, but there do seem to have been Bramptons in London after Thomas was born.
BTW the only other Adam Beaumont I've found was the son of Henry Beaumont of Whittley Beaumont in Yorkshire, brother of Richard. He would have been born around 1390 and was the grandson of Henry Beaumont, 3 Baron Beaumont and Margaret De Vere.
Of course none of this is helped by the numerous variations on the name. Did you get anywhere with AALT and Emme Spayne case, I keep looking but there are so many to go through? H

Hi,
I haven't been able to find anything more on Emme Spayne specifically. I had been looking at the distribution of Yorkist families around Kent and Essex and tried to find out more about the Essex Beaumonts, but I have been so busy recently I had to take a break, and I'm trying to find where I left off. There was a Beaumont family who lived on the Shotley Peninsula area of Essex, but they are a bit too recent to be closely related to Margaret and Thomas. Even there, the roads lead back to the main Beaumont branch. There were other Beaumonts in Kent, Norfolk and Suffolk. I still can't link Thomas and Margaret, but I still think that they were distantly related to these families, but were involved in London trade like the Spaynes. I also had a look at the Beaumonts of Whittley Beaumont and couldn't fit them in there, but this was a large family and it is possible that not all members have been accounted for. Adam isn't a particularly common name, so there is a good chance that the two Adams came from the same family. Which site is AALT?

I read about William Brampton, who certainly had a remarkable career. He also had land in one the Kent Yorkist hotspots, where we find the Wilfords, Spaynes, Hautes etc. I will look for more on this Robert Spayne.

Back to the Beaumonts, a possible line could be Thomas the Tapicer - John - Adam or Robert - Richard - Thomas and Margaret? I will keep digging.
Nico


On Wednesday, 7 November 2018, 10:21:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, No, as you probably know, BHOL and the NA seemed to be having trouble with their search engines for about a week so that knocked me back.
Here's where I've got to:
The earliest Bonauntre/Beaumond I can find in London so far is Tapicer Thomas who lived at St Dionysia Backchurch (interesting JB 1417 has daughter Dionysia) who died in 1394 and conveniently left a will. His parents were William and Agnes, he had three children, William, John and John (the younger), two of whom were certainly tapicers. He also had a brother John (our John of 1417)? He had land in Chigwell Essex.
Then, yesterday I found a will for Richard Beaumond, JB's son (it is labelled 'Joan' in the NA). It's very short and he died in 1425, with no mention of a wife or heirs but his executors are John Middleton & Philip Malpas, so he must be our man. That rules him out as 'kin' of Thomas salter in 1457. Adam Beaumond, his brother, who was given lands at Billingsgate I can't find so far. I'm also certain JB's original will in Latin mentions another child Robert, and there is a Robert Beaumond around in London up to the 1450s. I wonder if Richard in salter's will is his son and perhaps the father of our Thomas? More work!
The William Brampton MP died in London in 1406 was quite famous (you can read his biography in hpol). He came from the Norfolk Bramptons as he left money to a church in Norfolk. His son James seems to have had 3 children - John, another stockfishmonger, who died circa 1472 and was also an MP, Richard a stockfishmonger, died after 1469 and William, who could be our 'writer of the court hand'. That's as far as I've got, but there do seem to have been Bramptons in London after Thomas was born.
BTW the only other Adam Beaumont I've found was the son of Henry Beaumont of Whittley Beaumont in Yorkshire, brother of Richard. He would have been born around 1390 and was the grandson of Henry Beaumont, 3 Baron Beaumont and Margaret De Vere.
Of course none of this is helped by the numerous variations on the name. Did you get anywhere with AALT and Emme Spayne case, I keep looking but there are so many to go through? H


On Tuesday, 6 November 2018, 20:46:12 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I'm pleased to see the forum back. I was getting concerned it might disappear.
There are so many spellings of Beaumont. The Emden book has about 20 Thomas' entry. I think that these Bonaunts could be the right ones for Thomas and Margaret. Interesting too, that there are no other Emme/Emmas, so Ms Bremonger remains a good candidate. I hadn't come across William Brampton and Robert Spayne. When did they live? If it was 15th century, Brampton was probably the Norfolk branch, but they also had Yorkist connections and at least two were Warbeck supporters.

I was surprised to find so many families in Kent with such strong connections to the House of York and the Woodvilles, and the locations are suggestive of a Yorkish social network. I don't know if Anthony had his own place at Ightham, but his aunt married into the Hautes who lived at Ightham.. If Thomas Beaumont maintained any connections with Kent, he was well placed to keep an eye on these people. The Wilford affair is very murky, but clearly it was serious. Fabyan and Vergil give very different accounts. Fabyan claims the activity was in Kent, whereas Vergil says Norfolk. Since Fabyan had less of a vested interest in writing to please HT, and probably wrote his account closer to the time, I'm inclined to think his version was correct.
Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 11:54:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, sorry to be so long coming back on this. As you know BHOL has been having its problems.
I have found an earlier Thomas Bonauntre in London in the 1380s. He was a rug/tapistry maker and was a sheriff of London, so is probably the father of John and Thomas the chaundlers (families did seem to vary in their choice of trade). Did you notice that there is also a William Brampton, sheriff, and 'writer in the Court hand' at about this time? Robert Spayne was also a 'writer in the Court hand'.
If Thomas Bonauntre is an ancestor then he must have been born about 1350, so we're going a long way back? I still wander whether there is some confusion in the name and our Thomas chose the Lords Beaumont variant? Interesting that John and Richard in 1490 were still being spelled as Bonaunt.
FWIW one wet Saturday I went through all the London wills in BHOL and can't find a single merchant with a daughter Emma/Emme, apart from Emme Bomanger. But they of course are not complete.
With regards to Kent, I think it was Ian Mortimer who said that it was regarded with suspicion by the rest of the country. Something to do with both the accent and the tendency to rebel. I would agree it has more than the usual inter-familial marriages, a bit like Yorkshire, so if you were a Woodville in 1483 it was easy to mobilise. Didn't Anthony have a pad at Ightham?
What is interesting is that by 1507 there had been a lot more integration between the Kent gentry and the London elite. So with all this we have three stages:
1) 1483 Woodville mobilisation (and failure)
2) Post Bosworth - old enemies like Cis and EW potentially regroup to salvage what remains of the HOY
3) 1495 - they are gone and there is a growing other group (at home and abroad) who are just longing to get rid of HT who is now seriously more unpopular than any Yorkist king ever was. You didn't have to be a traditional Yorkist to hope for an alternative but it would be useful to produce one. Certainly Simon Mountfort falls into this category, as do the Scottish, the French ........ H

On Monday, 22 October 2018, 14:46:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas............. Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

There are sometimes 10 to a page in the category. This also might help: Google Groups
Google Groups

Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experienc...

There are sometimes 10 to a page in the category. This also might help: Google Groups
Google Groups

Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experienc...

Hi I think at times we need to take a break and a long walk from this :)
The AALT link is this - prepare for eye-ache
AALT Page

AALT Page

There are sometimes 10 to a page in the category.
This also might help:
Google Groups

Google Groups

Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experienc...

The earliest Bonauntre/Beaumond I can find in London so far is Tapicer Thomas who lived at St Dionysia Backchurch (interesting JB 1417 has daughter Dionysia) who died in 1394 and conveniently left a will. His parents were William and Agnes, he had three children, William, John and John (the younger), two of whom were certainly tapicers. He also had a brother John (our John of 1417)? He had land in Chigwell Essex.
Then, yesterday I found a will for Richard Beaumond, JB's son (it is labelled 'Joan' in the NA). It's very short and he died in 1425, with no mention of a wife or heirs but his executors are John Middleton & Philip Malpas, so he must be our man. That rules him out as 'kin' of Thomas salter in 1457. Adam Beaumond, his brother, who was given lands at Billingsgate I can't find so far. I'm also certain JB's original will in Latin mentions another child Robert, and there is a Robert Beaumond around in London up to the 1450s. I wonder if Richard in salter's will is his son and perhaps the father of our Thomas? More work!
The William Brampton MP died in London in 1406 was quite famous (you can read his biography in hpol). He came from the Norfolk Bramptons as he left money to a church in Norfolk. His son James seems to have had 3 children - John, another stockfishmonger, who died circa 1472 and was also an MP, Richard a stockfishmonger, died after 1469 and William, who could be our 'writer of the court hand'. That's as far as I've got, but there do seem to have been Bramptons in London after Thomas was born.
BTW the only other Adam Beaumont I've found was the son of Henry Beaumont of Whittley Beaumont in Yorkshire, brother of Richard. He would have been born around 1390 and was the grandson of Henry Beaumont, 3 Baron Beaumont and Margaret De Vere.
Of course none of this is helped by the numerous variations on the name. Did you get anywhere with AALT and Emme Spayne case, I keep looking but there are so many to go through? H

Hi,
I haven't been able to find anything more on Emme Spayne specifically. I had been looking at the distribution of Yorkist families around Kent and Essex and tried to find out more about the Essex Beaumonts, but I have been so busy recently I had to take a break, and I'm trying to find where I left off. There was a Beaumont family who lived on the Shotley Peninsula area of Essex, but they are a bit too recent to be closely related to Margaret and Thomas. Even there, the roads lead back to the main Beaumont branch. There were other Beaumonts in Kent, Norfolk and Suffolk. I still can't link Thomas and Margaret, but I still think that they were distantly related to these families, but were involved in London trade like the Spaynes. I also had a look at the Beaumonts of Whittley Beaumont and couldn't fit them in there, but this was a large family and it is possible that not all members have been accounted for. Adam isn't a particularly common name, so there is a good chance that the two Adams came from the same family. Which site is AALT?

I read about William Brampton, who certainly had a remarkable career. He also had land in one the Kent Yorkist hotspots, where we find the Wilfords, Spaynes, Hautes etc. I will look for more on this Robert Spayne.

Back to the Beaumonts, a possible line could be Thomas the Tapicer - John - Adam or Robert - Richard - Thomas and Margaret? I will keep digging.
Nico


On Wednesday, 7 November 2018, 10:21:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, No, as you probably know, BHOL and the NA seemed to be having trouble with their search engines for about a week so that knocked me back.
Here's where I've got to:
The earliest Bonauntre/Beaumond I can find in London so far is Tapicer Thomas who lived at St Dionysia Backchurch (interesting JB 1417 has daughter Dionysia) who died in 1394 and conveniently left a will. His parents were William and Agnes, he had three children, William, John and John (the younger), two of whom were certainly tapicers. He also had a brother John (our John of 1417)? He had land in Chigwell Essex.
Then, yesterday I found a will for Richard Beaumond, JB's son (it is labelled 'Joan' in the NA). It's very short and he died in 1425, with no mention of a wife or heirs but his executors are John Middleton & Philip Malpas, so he must be our man. That rules him out as 'kin' of Thomas salter in 1457. Adam Beaumond, his brother, who was given lands at Billingsgate I can't find so far. I'm also certain JB's original will in Latin mentions another child Robert, and there is a Robert Beaumond around in London up to the 1450s. I wonder if Richard in salter's will is his son and perhaps the father of our Thomas? More work!
The William Brampton MP died in London in 1406 was quite famous (you can read his biography in hpol). He came from the Norfolk Bramptons as he left money to a church in Norfolk. His son James seems to have had 3 children - John, another stockfishmonger, who died circa 1472 and was also an MP, Richard a stockfishmonger, died after 1469 and William, who could be our 'writer of the court hand'. That's as far as I've got, but there do seem to have been Bramptons in London after Thomas was born.
BTW the only other Adam Beaumont I've found was the son of Henry Beaumont of Whittley Beaumont in Yorkshire, brother of Richard. He would have been born around 1390 and was the grandson of Henry Beaumont, 3 Baron Beaumont and Margaret De Vere.
Of course none of this is helped by the numerous variations on the name. Did you get anywhere with AALT and Emme Spayne case, I keep looking but there are so many to go through? H


On Tuesday, 6 November 2018, 20:46:12 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I'm pleased to see the forum back. I was getting concerned it might disappear.
There are so many spellings of Beaumont. The Emden book has about 20 Thomas' entry. I think that these Bonaunts could be the right ones for Thomas and Margaret. Interesting too, that there are no other Emme/Emmas, so Ms Bremonger remains a good candidate. I hadn't come across William Brampton and Robert Spayne. When did they live? If it was 15th century, Brampton was probably the Norfolk branch, but they also had Yorkist connections and at least two were Warbeck supporters.

I was surprised to find so many families in Kent with such strong connections to the House of York and the Woodvilles, and the locations are suggestive of a Yorkish social network. I don't know if Anthony had his own place at Ightham, but his aunt married into the Hautes who lived at Ightham.. If Thomas Beaumont maintained any connections with Kent, he was well placed to keep an eye on these people. The Wilford affair is very murky, but clearly it was serious. Fabyan and Vergil give very different accounts. Fabyan claims the activity was in Kent, whereas Vergil says Norfolk. Since Fabyan had less of a vested interest in writing to please HT, and probably wrote his account closer to the time, I'm inclined to think his version was correct.
Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 11:54:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, sorry to be so long coming back on this. As you know BHOL has been having its problems.
I have found an earlier Thomas Bonauntre in London in the 1380s. He was a rug/tapistry maker and was a sheriff of London, so is probably the father of John and Thomas the chaundlers (families did seem to vary in their choice of trade). Did you notice that there is also a William Brampton, sheriff, and 'writer in the Court hand' at about this time? Robert Spayne was also a 'writer in the Court hand'.
If Thomas Bonauntre is an ancestor then he must have been born about 1350, so we're going a long way back? I still wander whether there is some confusion in the name and our Thomas chose the Lords Beaumont variant? Interesting that John and Richard in 1490 were still being spelled as Bonaunt.
FWIW one wet Saturday I went through all the London wills in BHOL and can't find a single merchant with a daughter Emma/Emme, apart from Emme Bomanger. But they of course are not complete.
With regards to Kent, I think it was Ian Mortimer who said that it was regarded with suspicion by the rest of the country. Something to do with both the accent and the tendency to rebel. I would agree it has more than the usual inter-familial marriages, a bit like Yorkshire, so if you were a Woodville in 1483 it was easy to mobilise. Didn't Anthony have a pad at Ightham?
What is interesting is that by 1507 there had been a lot more integration between the Kent gentry and the London elite. So with all this we have three stages:
1) 1483 Woodville mobilisation (and failure)
2) Post Bosworth - old enemies like Cis and EW potentially regroup to salvage what remains of the HOY
3) 1495 - they are gone and there is a growing other group (at home and abroad) who are just longing to get rid of HT who is now seriously more unpopular than any Yorkist king ever was. You didn't have to be a traditional Yorkist to hope for an alternative but it would be useful to produce one. Certainly Simon Mountfort falls into this category, as do the Scottish, the French ........ H

On Monday, 22 October 2018, 14:46:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it?
The 'County set' is rather incestous at the best of times, and these people in Kent were certainly no exception. When I was browsing for Beamonds I found this index of wills in Kent from the 1500s, and checked for some of the names. Beamond, Wilford, and Spayne (Spayn) are all listed in an area of a few miles in a triangle between Maidstone, Dartford and Rochester. There were no Bonaunts, but Chelsfield was in this area as is Ightham Mote, home of some the Hautes. There is also a Barley at Ightham and a Robert Clifford at West Malling. Lullingstone is right next to Chelsfield. The references to Spayn were closer to Rochester, next to the ones for Wilford. Therefore we have one group of Spayn/es that lived in this area and another who live near Eastwell. There is a Malpas, but a bit further South. http://vulpeculox.net/history/kwills.htm
If these people are from a higher social class, than they probably knew each other and socialized together. The Kent Beamonds may also be related to the Essex/London Beamonds as these towns are not far from the Medway. I couldn't find a present day Southwold in Essex, but there are references to Southwold in place names around Leigh-on-Sea, only a river crossing from Kent. People from either of these locations could also gravitate towards the Fenchurch Street area when they move to London.

Therefore, I think we could be on the right track with Thomas Beamond the Salter being related to Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the family were part of the Kent gentry. That would put Thomas and ultimately Brampton in a position to be informed and since Brampton has by this point changed loyalties, whatever was going on with Ralph Wilford ended up being relayed Henry.
Nico


On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 15:07:57 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say and in the court case who is the other half.
I think that Richard Beaumont would be too old? The one mentioned is with John gent in a case in 1490 and is a priest from Kent. H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:44:36 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi I haven't got the one about the court case either - till now (i.e. no detail). Now John Beamond the Chandler (he's in our merchant book under Philip Malpas) also had land in Chelmsford Essex. He left it to his son Richard. Richard is mentioned as a blood relative in the will of Thomas the Salter in 1457. There's also a Thomas Beamond Chandler mentioned in a case in 1414, so could Thomas, salter, be his son?
We do have a tenuous link to the Perkin case too (and I'm stressing tenuous). You see Philippa Malpas, JB's granddaughter, married Ralph Josselyn, the Lord Mayor. She died in 1451 and his third wife was Elizabeth Barley, probably sister of William Barley and later wife of Sir Robert Clifford, who is supposed to have been a spy in the Perkin case (as he got away with it). I still wonder whether TB's promotion under King was a way of getting info on Brampton to check there were no more 'Perkin incidents' being conceived - like your guy Ralph Wilford who had slipped through my net. Talking of which Catherine Wilford, daughter of James Wilford Sheriff of London, married a Gainsford as well - Henry son of Sir Robert Gainsford (d. 1505) and Margaret Moyle of er Eastwell. Half-sister of Sir Thomas. All too incestuous isn't it? H
On Saturday, 20 October 2018, 14:27:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I think some of my messages have gone missing including the one with the details of the court cases. Where can the details of the court of pleas case for Emme Spayne and Thomas Beaumont be found. Is there a location in London?
John Beamond the Chandler is a good find. Thomas and Margaret could well be related to him (looking at the timeline, grandfather or great grandfather perhaps.) St. Benet Gracechurch is near Fenchurch Street.
I found an IPM for Richard Beamond about property inherited from his wife Katherine Beamond in 1434 in Herefordshire. Is this the one you mentioned?
Nico



On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:45:17 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

John Beamond 'wealthy chandler' was the grandfather of two wives of London Mayors - Ralph Josselyn and Thomas Cooke. We're into London royalty here. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 16:07:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Creeping there, creeping there
Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

Wills: 9 Henry V (1421-2) | British History Online

And Thomas the salter is blood relation to Richard Beamond. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 13:13:11 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry! Thomas Beaumont the salter is there in 1436. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:51:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And to be honest I constantly feel railroaded by your negativity. As I said earlier too Emme could have married Poliver after Spayne (who was dead in the 1490s) but reverted to her previous name for whatever reason. It's not unusual as you know from IPMs. She also had a son Giles, who appears to have been an attorney.
Cosyn and King had cloth merchant ancestors in London which go back to at least 1436 - their fathers are listed in the tax assessment then. They belonged to the same community though my guess is that the Kings were poorer than the Cosyns since the kids had to be bailed out by the merchant community when John Kyng died. There was no Braymanger, Petit or Beaumont in London then so they must have been relative newcomers. Spayne worked for/with the merchant community and his ancestors were also in the cloth merchant community as 'tapicers' in 1400. I think those are credible links.
As for cast-iron evidence of everything, no books would ever be written and I'd give up tomorrow. JAH wrote a whole book on Eleanor, most of which was based on supposition and it's actually very good.
As for Woodville/Gaynsford/Haute I would have thought it firmed up the belief (which some discount) that Brampton had a hand in the 'journey' of a potential prince. Quite honestly, I don't know where it could lead us which is part of the fun and I do think, like Baldwin, that Richard of Eastwell was no jobbing carpenter. And Magdalen Oxford is interesting but I'm not going into that.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree and who cares who thought of TB and London, as long as some-one did. Cheers! H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 12:24:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas.............. Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely..
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

It's a very good programme Doug. Like us, all about proof and provenance. But never tackle the French! H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:03:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Oh H, I live in the south of France now so I tackle these lovely French every day, though I've not had much tackling as everyones been really welcoming. And the historical documentaries on French television are simply extraordinary in the depth of their analyses and coverage, everything from the Nazi occupation, thé Vichy Government, thé First World War, thé revolutions of the 1800s and the second empire, thé French Revolution itself, trial of Marie Antoinette, through the 30 Years Wars, Louis XIV, thé Hundred Years War (3 hours partially dramatised in gorgeous costumes and authentic locations), right back to the Romans and the origins of the Gauls themselves. Amazing material every week something to get involved in and find out more about from a different perspective. And it is matched by the number of epic dramas they also make. Last week was a four hour mini series about Victor Hugo focusing on his involvement in politics around the time he was writing Les Mis, while Revolution was exploding all about him. Amazing involving beautifully produced.

It's a very good programme Doug. Like us, all about proof and provenance. But never tackle the French! H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:03:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, what a lovely defense of the French and how I envy you and where you live. I love France and its history and language too - it was always a toss up between History and French for me. And, as you say, their history and literature programmes are so much better researched and 'costumed' than ours. And they cherish their history so much more than we do; everything is so beautifully labelled!
The 'French' I was talking about were the closed and elitist groups who had devoted their lives and reputations to becoming the 'expert' on a particular artist and woe betide anyone who dared to challenge their decisions - a bit like another Society we know at times :) :) H
(who will be heading that way again in a couple of weeks)
On Saturday, 10 November 2018, 07:16:19 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Oh H, I live in the south of France now so I tackle these lovely French every day, though I've not had much tackling as everyones been really welcoming. And the historical documentaries on French television are simply extraordinary in the depth of their analyses and coverage, everything from the Nazi occupation, thé Vichy Government, thé First World War, thé revolutions of the 1800s and the second empire, thé French Revolution itself, trial of Marie Antoinette, through the 30 Years Wars, Louis XIV, thé Hundred Years War (3 hours partially dramatised in gorgeous costumes and authentic locations), right back to the Romans and the origins of the Gauls themselves. Amazing material every week something to get involved in and find out more about from a different perspective. And it is matched by the number of epic dramas they also make. Last week was a four hour mini series about Victor Hugo focusing on his involvement in politics around the time he was writing Les Mis, while Revolution was exploding all about him. Amazing involving beautifully produced.

It's a very good programme Doug. Like us, all about proof and provenance. But never tackle the French! H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:03:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I've heard about that program, possibly from someone here mentioning it, but never seen it. I sounds interesting, so maybe it'll be taken up by a Public Broadcasting station and get picked up by others. Bu that page is all Elvish to me! Doug Hilary wrote: It did help me decipher a signature on a painting in Fake or Fortune' (do you have it over there Doug?). The 'experts' mulled over it till the big reveal It was was actually - Jones :) :) H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, what a lovely defense of the French and how I envy you and where you live. I love France and its history and language too - it was always a toss up between History and French for me. And, as you say, their history and literature programmes are so much better researched and 'costumed' than ours. And they cherish their history so much more than we do; everything is so beautifully labelled!
The 'French' I was talking about were the closed and elitist groups who had devoted their lives and reputations to becoming the 'expert' on a particular artist and woe betide anyone who dared to challenge their decisions - a bit like another Society we know at times :) :) H
(who will be heading that way again in a couple of weeks)
On Saturday, 10 November 2018, 07:16:19 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Oh H, I live in the south of France now so I tackle these lovely French every day, though I've not had much tackling as everyones been really welcoming. And the historical documentaries on French television are simply extraordinary in the depth of their analyses and coverage, everything from the Nazi occupation, thé Vichy Government, thé First World War, thé revolutions of the 1800s and the second empire, thé French Revolution itself, trial of Marie Antoinette, through the 30 Years Wars, Louis XIV, thé Hundred Years War (3 hours partially dramatised in gorgeous costumes and authentic locations), right back to the Romans and the origins of the Gauls themselves. Amazing material every week something to get involved in and find out more about from a different perspective. And it is matched by the number of epic dramas they also make. Last week was a four hour mini series about Victor Hugo focusing on his involvement in politics around the time he was writing Les Mis, while Revolution was exploding all about him. Amazing involving beautifully produced.

It's a very good programme Doug. Like us, all about proof and provenance. But never tackle the French! H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:03:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I've heard about that program, possibly from someone here mentioning it, but never seen it. I sounds interesting, so maybe it'll be taken up by a Public Broadcasting station and get picked up by others. Bu that page is all Elvish to me! Doug Hilary wrote: It did help me decipher a signature on a painting in Fake or Fortune' (do you have it over there Doug?). The 'experts' mulled over it till the big reveal It was was actually - Jones :) :) H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary cited the following case:

C 1/54/312Description: Short title: Spayne v Gulle.Plaintiffs: Robert Spayne, scrivener, and others, executors of Robert Stone, late citizen and mercer of London, and John Petyte and Emma his wife, executrix and previously the wife of the said Robert.
Defendants: John Gulle, clerk, feoffee to uses.
Subject: Lands in Styfford and South Wokendon. Essex

Carol responds:

Emma is identified as "previously the wife of said Robert," but there are two Roberts, Robert Spayne and Robert Stone. Which is being referred to and how do we know?

Carol