Controversy

Sorry Paul & others, it sounds as though there is still some
confusion over the Countess of Desmond despite Katy's link. I hate to
pour cold water on evidence for Richard's good looks, but we can't be
caught picking and choosing evidence on its suitability for our case
rather than its rliability.

Clearly she did not live to be 140, but we can say that not simply
because of its inherent unlikilihood but because we have enough
information to make a good stab at her lifespan.

She died in 1604. That is a known fact. She married (for the first
time) to her cousin the 12th Earl of Desmond between 1505 and 1534,
and bore him a daughter. Said 12th earl was born in 1454 (according
to the Complete Peerage)anbd was a younger son of the 8th earl who
was so scandalously executed in 1468.
Katherine's own grandfather, Sir Gerald Mor FitzGerald, was the next
youngest brother of the 8th Earl of Desmond, and the 8th earl was
born about 1426.
So her grandfather was born not early than 1427, and probably later.
Allowing the normal 30 years between generations, she herself would
have been born about 1487, and have been 18 or more at the time of
her marriage.
The last time an earl of Desmond came to England during Richard's
lifetime was shortly after the marriage of Edward to Elizabeth
Woodville. This was the 8th earl, who was then executed on Tiptoft's
order in 1468, according to tradition because he told Edward he
thought he'd done the wrong thing. After that the family stayed well
clear. Richard would have been only 11 or 12.
At the risk of really setting the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder
if Katherine could have been relaying a family story about Clarence -
Irish-born and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 3 years older than Richard
and very likely to have been involved in entertaining younger members
of the Irish party in 1464. Both Mancini and another contemporary
source (which escapes me for the moment) comment on Clarence's good
looks.
Sorry if this sounds like Einstein. I take a special interest in the
Irish side of things.
Ducking for cover (not actually hunchbacked),

Marie

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Stoke Field. I still haven't
seen any reason why John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln would die fighting
for an imposter instead of pressing his own claim.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln>

What a question. Five centuries later, I still don't think we have an answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Simons
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: An Anniversary


Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Stoke Field. I still haven't
seen any reason why John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln would die fighting
for an imposter instead of pressing his own claim.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

more intriguing, why would Lovel support an imposter when de la Pole could have been crowned in the place of Simnel.

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:What a question. Five centuries later, I still don't think we have an answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Simons
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: An Anniversary


Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Stoke Field. I still haven't
seen any reason why John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln would die fighting
for an imposter instead of pressing his own claim.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

One possibility?

Given that everyone was by then accepting the
legitimacy of Edward IV's children, de la Pole had
less of a claim than the sitting queen. Whereas the
"imposter" could, if believed, have a better claim to
the throne than either.

--- Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
> What a question. Five centuries later, I still don't
> think we have an answer.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Simons
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 2:51 AM
> Subject: Re: An
> Anniversary
>
>
> Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Stoke
> Field. I still haven't
> seen any reason why John de la Pole, Earl of
> Lincoln would die fighting
> for an imposter instead of pressing his own claim.
>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
>
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>

In her book The Mystery of the Princes by Audrey Williamson, the author says that it has
been suggested that the Simnel affair was a kind of "try out"of public opinion and support
with the intention of producing one of the princes - still too young to be personally risked
and his whereabouts made known - if the rebellion succeeded. This sounds plausible to
me.
best wishes Eileen




--- In , Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...>
wrote:
> One possibility?
>
> Given that everyone was by then accepting the
> legitimacy of Edward IV's children, de la Pole had
> less of a claim than the sitting queen. Whereas the
> "imposter" could, if believed, have a better claim to
> the throne than either.
>
> --- Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > What a question. Five centuries later, I still don't
> > think we have an answer.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Simons
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 2:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: An
> > Anniversary
> >
> >
> > Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Stoke
> > Field. I still haven't
> > seen any reason why John de la Pole, Earl of
> > Lincoln would die fighting
> > for an imposter instead of pressing his own claim.
> >
> >
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln>
> >
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> > email to:
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >