Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's height and Edward's h

Are you a Society member?
If so, a certain well-known committee member has this as one of his regular topics.
You are right about excluding the Beauforts, upon which the Tudors depend but the Staffords and Yorkists do not.
You are also right about the Portugese Royals and Hollands being very relevant. However, foreign monarchs do claim each others' crowns so true Lancastrians should look to Portugal or Burgundy for a "Real Monarch".
I suspect that the Earl of Westmorland you have in mind was a Neville and one such was responsible for retaking Scarborough Castle in 1557 even though he was Thomas Stafford's uncle.
Which of Gaunt's daughters was the elder? I must still have the genealogy from the talk three years ago. Our online sources must be of use. The Portugese monarchy is in exile since about 1910.
----- Original Message -----
From: theblackprussian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's height and Edward's hair



> Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
> exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
>
> Katy

This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the death
of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from John
of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian estates
were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche of
Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One of
them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But convention
seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign nobility.
However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think his
heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making a
claim.
The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the Hollands. So
it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back from
Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the Duchy
of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor history I
wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering the
succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor relatives
and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly superior
to any of them.





SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
I suspect that the Earl of Westmorland you have in mind was a Neville and one such was responsible for retaking Scarborough Castle in 1557 even though he was Thomas Stafford's uncle.


Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, was one of the leaders (along with the then Percy Earl of Northumberland) of the Rising of the North of 1569, which sought to place the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots on the English throne. He was descended from Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland by his first marriage (to a Stafford, I think). The rising failed, Northumberland was later caught and beheaded, Westmorland survived, but his title is still under attainder.





The Portugese monarchy is in exile since about 1910.

1910 precisely. Manoel II of Portugal succeeded to the throne in 1909 after his father and elder brother were both shot by an assassin (the Crown Prince died some 20 minutes after the father so technically reigned). However, Manoel abdicated in 1910 after a republic was proclaimed and spent the rest of his fairly short life in exile in England. There is a Portuguese pretender but no sign of a restoration of the monarchy.



Ann


----- Original Message -----
From: theblackprussian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's height and Edward's hair



> Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
> exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
>
> Katy

This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the death
of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from John
of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian estates
were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche of
Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One of
them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But convention
seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign nobility.
However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think his
heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making a
claim.
The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the Hollands. So
it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back from
Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the Duchy
of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor history I
wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering the
succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor relatives
and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly superior
to any of them.





SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

Checking up on this, I find that actually the Holland heiress married
John, Lord Nevill who died before his father and so never bore the
title. Their son was the 3rd Earl of Westmoreland and the line
continued the family tradition of having large litters of offspring.
So in fact there are numerous decendents of these Nevilles with a
hereditary claim on the Duchy. Of course all Kings after 1399
treated the Lancaster estates as Crown land as it was far too
valuable to lose. But if Henry Tudor could establish a legal claim
to the crown anything is possible...
After the disgrace of Charles Neville the family simply called
themselves "Lords Westmoreland". Still under attainder, perhaps, but
most attainders are reversed in time. This line has just had to wait
rather longer than most...
Perhaps the Crown is suspicious of this claim being revised.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> I suspect that the Earl of Westmorland you have in mind was a
Neville and one such was responsible for retaking Scarborough Castle
in 1557 even though he was Thomas Stafford's uncle.
>
>
> Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, was one of the leaders
(along with the then Percy Earl of Northumberland) of the Rising of
the North of 1569, which sought to place the imprisoned Mary Queen of
Scots on the English throne. He was descended from Ralph Neville, 1st
Earl of Westmorland by his first marriage (to a Stafford, I think).
The rising failed, Northumberland was later caught and beheaded,
Westmorland survived, but his title is still under attainder.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Portugese monarchy is in exile since about 1910.
>
> 1910 precisely. Manoel II of Portugal succeeded to the throne in
1909 after his father and elder brother were both shot by an assassin
(the Crown Prince died some 20 minutes after the father so
technically reigned). However, Manoel abdicated in 1910 after a
republic was proclaimed and spent the rest of his fairly short life
in exile in England. There is a Portuguese pretender but no sign of a
restoration of the monarchy.
>
>
>
> Ann
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: theblackprussian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's height and
Edward's hair
>
>
>
> > Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had
produced,
> > exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
> >
> > Katy
>
> This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the
death
> of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
> If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
> certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from
John
> of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian
estates
> were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche
of
> Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
> Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One
of
> them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But
convention
> seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign
nobility.
> However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think
his
> heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making
a
> claim.
> The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the
Hollands. So
> it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
> Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
> out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back
from
> Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
> after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
> Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
> As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the
Duchy
> of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
> claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor
history I
> wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
> Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering
the
> succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor
relatives
> and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly
superior
> to any of them.
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
flower delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
kingdom hotel
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> 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
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just a few observations:

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Checking up on this, I find that actually the Holland heiress
married
> John, Lord Nevill who died before his father and so never bore the
> title. Their son was the 3rd Earl of Westmoreland and the line
> continued the family tradition of having large litters of
offspring.
> So in fact there are numerous decendents of these Nevilles with a
> hereditary claim on the Duchy. Of course all Kings after 1399
> treated the Lancaster estates as Crown land as it was far too
> valuable to lose. But if Henry Tudor could establish a legal claim
> to the crown anything is possible...
> After the disgrace of Charles Neville the family simply called
> themselves "Lords Westmoreland". Still under attainder, perhaps,
but
> most attainders are reversed in time. This line has just had to
wait
> rather longer than most...
> Perhaps the Crown is suspicious of this claim being revised.

Arthur Capell, Baron Hadham was attainted in 1649 and never reversed.
His heirs have been Earls of Essex and Viscounts Malden since 1661.
William Howard, Viscount Stafford was attainted in 1680. His son was
made an Earl in 1693 but the attainder was forgotten until the early
1800s.
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I suspect that the Earl of Westmorland you have in mind was a
> Neville and one such was responsible for retaking Scarborough
Castle
> in 1557 even though he was Thomas Stafford's uncle.
> >
> >
> > Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, was one of the leaders
> (along with the then Percy Earl of Northumberland) of the Rising of
> the North of 1569, which sought to place the imprisoned Mary Queen
of
> Scots on the English throne. He was descended from Ralph Neville,
1st
> Earl of Westmorland by his first marriage (to a Stafford, I think).
> The rising failed, Northumberland was later caught and beheaded,
> Westmorland survived, but his title is still under attainder.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Portugese monarchy is in exile since about 1910.
> >
> > 1910 precisely. Manoel II of Portugal succeeded to the throne in
> 1909 after his father and elder brother were both shot by an
assassin
> (the Crown Prince died some 20 minutes after the father so
> technically reigned). However, Manoel abdicated in 1910 after a
> republic was proclaimed and spent the rest of his fairly short life
> in exile in England. There is a Portuguese pretender but no sign of
a
> restoration of the monarchy.
> >
Did Portugal ever have a Salic Law?
If not then, subject to changes in their line, their pretender is our
Lancastrian claimant, much as Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudoun is to
Yorkists (thankyou, MKJ). In other words, if the Portugese crown only
passed through the male line then their claim to the English crown
could still pass through the female line because English law applies.
Have a look on Tompsett. The Tudors, therefore, are neither pedigree
Yorkists nor pedigree Lancastrians but third-rate mongrels.
Maria?
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: theblackprussian
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's height and
> Edward's hair
> >
> >
> >
> > > Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had
> produced,
> > > exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the
> death
> > of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
> > If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the
crown,
> > certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from
> John
> > of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian
> estates
> > were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife
Blanche
> of
> > Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on
the
> > Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One
> of
> > them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But
> convention
> > seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign
> nobility.
> > However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think
> his
> > heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with
making
> a
> > claim.
> > The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the
> Hollands. So
> > it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
> > Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have
made
> > out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way
back
> from
> > Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York,
but
> > after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
> > Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
> > As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the
> Duchy
> > of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed
Lancastrian
> > claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor
> history I
> > wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
> > Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when
considering
> the
> > succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor
> relatives
> > and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly
> superior
> > to any of them.
> >
> > Edward of Lancaster couldn't be more illegitimate if he lived in
a clock and sprung out on the hour!
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: Stephen Lark <smlark@...>
Sent: Nov 15, 2005 12:14 PM

Did Portugal ever have a Salic Law?
If not then, subject to changes in their line, their pretender is our
Lancastrian claimant, much as Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudoun is to
Yorkists (thankyou, MKJ). In other words, if the Portugese crown only
passed through the male line then their claim to the English crown
could still pass through the female line because English law applies.
Have a look on Tompsett. The Tudors, therefore, are neither pedigree
Yorkists nor pedigree Lancastrians but third-rate mongrels.
Maria?
===================

Unclear for our period, but my impression is that they did not observe Salic Law until the 18th century, when under the Bourbon influence. In the 16th-17th centuries, while trying to steer clear of the Hapsburgs, they seem to have instituted a right of succession not only through the female line but also through illegitimacy of the royal line, though I'll have to look into that (they reall didn't want Philly II to get in). If it helps at all, Joana, the Portuguese princess who turned down Richard III and became a nun in the convent of Aveiro, was regent of Portugal while her father and brother campaigned in Africa. However, if this is right, then of the major Iberian Christian kingdoms (not sure though about Navarra), only Aragon observed Salic Law, and considering the more constant run-ins with France that Aragon had, it kind of makes sense.

Maria
elena@...

From: Stephen Lark <smlark@...>
Sent: Nov 15, 2005 12:14 PM

Did Portugal ever have a Salic Law?
If not then, subject to changes in their line, their pretender is our
Lancastrian claimant, much as Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudoun is to
Yorkists (thankyou, MKJ). In other words, if the Portugese crown only
passed through the male line then their claim to the English crown
could still pass through the female line because English law applies.
Have a look on Tompsett. The Tudors, therefore, are neither pedigree
Yorkists nor pedigree Lancastrians but third-rate mongrels.
Maria?
===================

Seek and ye shall find. Here's a quick little reference from
http://biography-3.qardinalinfo.com/b/Beatrice_Princess_of_Portugal.html.

Beatriz was clearly heiress and successor to her father, and would have become queen regnant of Portugal (after a regency by her mother, it seems). The sticking point of why she lost the position was not so much the gender question as the question of Portuguese independence from Castile.

So, in "our" period, Portugal and Castile did not observe Salic Law; in Portugal, in order to ward off Felipe II, succession was apparently widened to include illegitimate branches of the Aviz House. However, when the Bourbons came in, all this changed to the more restrictive Salic Law. In Spain, this was rescinded for Isabel II (about whom I know little to nothing, but my father learned in school to think badly of her). So Aragon (and maybe Navarre, still not sure) observed Salic Law. However, just to be difficult, it appears that, from some point, though what point, and in what actual form, the Aragonese did have their kings agree to a coronation oath that, in its most potent and clear-cut form went like this: "We, who are as good as you, say to you, who are no better than we, that we will accept you as our sovereign so long as you observe our rights and privileges. And if not, not." (Even if the oath didn't exist in this type of form during "our" period, Juan II, Fernando, Charles V, and Philip II would all be able to testify that the Aragonese had a tendency to behave as though the oath did exist in exactly this form!).

Beatriz is pasted below.

Maria
elena@...


"Princess Beatrice of Portugal (in Portuguese Beatriz (1372, Coimbra-1410)) was the daughter of king Fernando of Portugal and his wife, the Castilian Leonor Telles de Menezes.

In the beginning of 1383, the political situation in Portugal was not peaceful. Beatrice was the king's only child, and heir to the throne, after her younger brothers' deaths in 1380 and 1382. Her marriage was the political issue of the day and inside the palace, factions lobbied constantly. Ferdinand arranged and cancelled his daughter's wedding several times before settling for his wife's first choice, king Juan I of Castile. Juan had lost his wife (Princess Leonor of Aragon) the year before, and was happy to take the Portuguese heiress. The wedding took place on May 17, 1383 in the Portuguese city of Elvas. Beatrice was only eleven years old -- old enough, apparently, for a marriage in the 14th century.

King Ferdinand of Portugal died shortly thereafter, on October 22, 1383. According to the treatise between Castile and Portugal, the Queen Mother, Leonor Telles de Menezes, became regent in the name of her daughter and son-in-law. But not everybody in Portugal was happy about this state of affairs. The loss of independence was unthinkable for the majority of Portuguese nobles. A rebellion led by the Master of the Order of Aviz, future João I of Portugal started in that year, leading to the 1383-1385 Crisis.

Juan I of Castile invaded Portugal in 1384 to fight for his newly-born son Miguel's (1384-1385) rights to the crown. That war ended in the next year, with the utter defeat of Castile in the Battle of Aljubarrota. In the aftermath of this battle, João I of Aviz became the uncontested king of Portugal. Beatrice was no longer heir to the throne; she was merely the Consort Queen.

Beatrice died in 1410 in Madrigal (Castile)."

What might make this Salic law speculation even more interesting is
this: Even though the Portuguese may have rejected the right of females
or their heirs to succeed to the Portuguese crown, such a ban would not
necessarily be valid should a Portuguese female or her heir, descended
from, say, John of Gaunt, put forward a claim to the English throne.

Maria wrote:

> From: Stephen Lark <smlark@...>
> Sent: Nov 15, 2005 12:14 PM
>
> Did Portugal ever have a Salic Law?
> If not then, subject to changes in their line, their pretender is our
> Lancastrian claimant, much as Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudoun is to
> Yorkists (thankyou, MKJ). In other words, if the Portugese crown only
> passed through the male line then their claim to the English crown
> could still pass through the female line because English law applies.
> Have a look on Tompsett. The Tudors, therefore, are neither pedigree
> Yorkists nor pedigree Lancastrians but third-rate mongrels.
> Maria?
> ===================
>
> Unclear for our period, but my impression is that they did not observe
> Salic Law until the 18th century, when under the Bourbon influence.
> In the 16th-17th centuries, while trying to steer clear of the
> Hapsburgs, they seem to have instituted a right of succession not only
> through the female line but also through illegitimacy of the royal
> line, though I'll have to look into that (they reall didn't want
> Philly II to get in). If it helps at all, Joana, the Portuguese
> princess who turned down Richard III and became a nun in the convent
> of Aveiro, was regent of Portugal while her father and brother
> campaigned in Africa. However, if this is right, then of the major
> Iberian Christian kingdoms (not sure though about Navarra), only
> Aragon observed Salic Law, and considering the more constant run-ins
> with France that Aragon had, it kind of makes sense.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Very useful. So, if I were to trace the true Lancastrian heir then I would expect some divergence between the principal Portugese monarchical line and the English-law line.
(For comparison, the Earldom of Huntingdon can only pass through the male line which is why Michael Hastings, NSW truck driver, is Earl of Loudoun but not Huntingdon.)
Does anyone wish me to have a go?
----- Original Message -----
From: Maria
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: True Lancastrians, attainders and the Portugese


From: Stephen Lark <smlark@...>
Sent: Nov 15, 2005 12:14 PM

Did Portugal ever have a Salic Law?
If not then, subject to changes in their line, their pretender is our
Lancastrian claimant, much as Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudoun is to
Yorkists (thankyou, MKJ). In other words, if the Portugese crown only
passed through the male line then their claim to the English crown
could still pass through the female line because English law applies.
Have a look on Tompsett. The Tudors, therefore, are neither pedigree
Yorkists nor pedigree Lancastrians but third-rate mongrels.
Maria?
===================

Unclear for our period, but my impression is that they did not observe Salic Law until the 18th century, when under the Bourbon influence. In the 16th-17th centuries, while trying to steer clear of the Hapsburgs, they seem to have instituted a right of succession not only through the female line but also through illegitimacy of the royal line, though I'll have to look into that (they reall didn't want Philly II to get in). If it helps at all, Joana, the Portuguese princess who turned down Richard III and became a nun in the convent of Aveiro, was regent of Portugal while her father and brother campaigned in Africa. However, if this is right, then of the major Iberian Christian kingdoms (not sure though about Navarra), only Aragon observed Salic Law, and considering the more constant run-ins with France that Aragon had, it kind of makes sense.

Maria
elena@...





SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Just a few observations:
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Checking up on this, I find that actually the Holland heiress
> married
> > John, Lord Nevill who died before his father and so never bore
the
> > title. Their son was the 3rd Earl of Westmoreland and the line
> > continued the family tradition of having large litters of
> offspring.
> > So in fact there are numerous decendents of these Nevilles with a
> > hereditary claim on the Duchy. Of course all Kings after 1399
> > treated the Lancaster estates as Crown land as it was far too
> > valuable to lose. But if Henry Tudor could establish a legal
claim
> > to the crown anything is possible...

Anything indeed was possible. Which is why, according to MKJ &
Underwood (The King's Mother), Henry immediately took custody of
Westmoreland's heir and gave him Margaret Beaufort together with the
children of all the other rival lines. His father was then forced to
enter into a number of bonds with Henry and sign over his son's
keeping to the new king. He was then given to the Cheyneys, who were
relatives of Margaret Beaufort, and they paid her a fee for him. So
he got a good Tudor upbringing.
Westmoreland's mother, as you rightly say, was Exeter's sister. She
was his only sibling, as Duke John just had the two children from his
first marriage, but none by either of his two subsequent wives.

The true (or true spurious) Lancastrian claim did onl rest in the
issue of Blanche of Lancaster, as Henry IV claimed that her ancestor
Edmund Crouchback had been older than his brother (Edward I, wasn't
it), but deprived of the crown because of his deformity. This turned
out to be nonsense on investigation, but by then Bolingbroke had
already made himself king.
This is relevant to our previous discussion, if you think about it.
In turning Richard into a hunchback, and claiming the hump as an
outward sign of inner deformity which made him unfit to be king,
Henry would also have undermined the Edmund Crouchback claim. If it
had indeed been right to debar Edmund Crouchback because of his
dformity, then Blanche of Lancaster's female offspring had no
superior rights to the descendants of Gaunt's male issue by other
wives.

I have a feeling that Philippa may have been the elder of Gaunt's
Lancastrian daughters. This is why there was periodic concern on the
part of English royal lines to marry her descendents. Duke John of
Exeter's second wife was a legitimised daughter of the King of
Portugal, for instance. Richard himself was negotiating for a
Portugese bride after Anne's death.

Marie

I agree on the point about Salic Law, though my knowledge of Portuguese royalty is pretty thin. The same point arises in relation to claims to the British throne and to that of Prussia.

Some years ago, when Jeffrey Archer (of all people) put forward a Bill to amend the Act of Settlement 1701 to give effect to strict primogeniture (i.e. first child inherits, regardless of sex) in the British succession, The Sunday Telegraph tracked down the ultimate heir to Queen Victoria, based on strict primogeniture. This is a certain Princess Felicitas of Prussia. Queen Victoria's eldest child was Victoria, the Princess Royal, who married the future Kaiser Friedrich III. Their eldest child was Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1918), whose eldest child was Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, whose eldest child was Princess Felicitas's father, Prince Wilhelm Friedrich of Prussia, who was killed fighting in France in 1940. Salic Law applies to the Prussian throne, so Felicitas has no claim to that (in any case, her father renounced his rights and those of his issue on marrying a commoner). However, she does have a rather distant place in the British succession.

Ann

William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
What might make this Salic law speculation even more interesting is
this: Even though the Portuguese may have rejected the right of females
or their heirs to succeed to the Portuguese crown, such a ban would not
necessarily be valid should a Portuguese female or her heir, descended
from, say, John of Gaunt, put forward a claim to the English throne.

I think I read somewhere that when he became King Richard III awarded
the Exeter estates to the Earl of Westmoreland. This should have
bound the Earl to the regime in the same way as granting the Mowbray
estates to Howard and Berkeley, though historians seem unsure as to
weather or not Westmoreland actually turned up at Bosworth. The
exception to this rule was of course was Buckingham. After
successfully nagging Richard into granting him the Duchy of
Lancaster's share of the Bohun estates he still rebelled.
This last begs the question: if the Earldom of Hereford could be
detached from the Duchy of Lancaster for it's rightful heir
(Buckingham), then why could not the Duchy itself be detached from
the crown for it's true representative (Westmoreland)?
It's interesting to reflect that the unfortunate Anne, daughter of
Henry Holland and Anne of York, would have had a very good claim to
be heir of both houses of York and Lancaster had she lived long
enough. (Assuming of course she managed to dodge the executioner's
axe as well as natural ailments).


--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Checking up on this, I find that actually the Holland heiress
married
> John, Lord Nevill who died before his father and so never bore the
> title. Their son was the 3rd Earl of Westmoreland and the line
> continued the family tradition of having large litters of
offspring.
> So in fact there are numerous decendents of these Nevilles with a
> hereditary claim on the Duchy. Of course all Kings after 1399
> treated the Lancaster estates as Crown land as it was far too
> valuable to lose. But if Henry Tudor could establish a legal claim
> to the crown anything is possible...
> After the disgrace of Charles Neville the family simply called
> themselves "Lords Westmoreland". Still under attainder, perhaps,
but
> most attainders are reversed in time. This line has just had to
wait
> rather longer than most...
> Perhaps the Crown is suspicious of this claim being revised.
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I suspect that the Earl of Westmorland you have in mind was a
> Neville and one such was responsible for retaking Scarborough
Castle
> in 1557 even though he was Thomas Stafford's uncle.
> >
> >
> > Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, was one of the leaders
> (along with the then Percy Earl of Northumberland) of the Rising of
> the North of 1569, which sought to place the imprisoned Mary Queen
of
> Scots on the English throne. He was descended from Ralph Neville,
1st
> Earl of Westmorland by his first marriage (to a Stafford, I think).
> The rising failed, Northumberland was later caught and beheaded,
> Westmorland survived, but his title is still under attainder.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Portugese monarchy is in exile since about 1910.
> >
> > 1910 precisely. Manoel II of Portugal succeeded to the throne in
> 1909 after his father and elder brother were both shot by an
assassin
> (the Crown Prince died some 20 minutes after the father so
> technically reigned). However, Manoel abdicated in 1910 after a
> republic was proclaimed and spent the rest of his fairly short life
> in exile in England. There is a Portuguese pretender but no sign of
a
> restoration of the monarchy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: theblackprussian
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's height and
> Edward's hair
> >
> >
> >
> > > Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had
> produced,
> > > exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the
> death
> > of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
> > If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the
crown,
> > certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from
> John
> > of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian
> estates
> > were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife
Blanche
> of
> > Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on
the
> > Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One
> of
> > them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But
> convention
> > seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign
> nobility.
> > However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think
> his
> > heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with
making
> a
> > claim.
> > The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the
> Hollands. So
> > it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
> > Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have
made
> > out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way
back
> from
> > Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York,
but
> > after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
> > Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
> > As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the
> Duchy
> > of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed
Lancastrian
> > claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor
> history I
> > wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
> > Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when
considering
> the
> > succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor
> relatives
> > and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly
> superior
> > to any of them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

What you say is true in regard to the Lancastrian claim to the Crown
through Edward III, but the point I was making in regard to Exeter
and the Potuguese line was also in respect of the Duchy of Lancaster
estates Gaunt aquired through his marriage to Blanche. It is only
Gaunt's descendents from this marriage who had hereditary claim on
these estates, those by Katherine Swynford (including Tudor) had none.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

> The true (or true spurious) Lancastrian claim did onl rest in the
> issue of Blanche of Lancaster, as Henry IV claimed that her
ancestor
> Edmund Crouchback had been older than his brother (Edward I, wasn't
> it), but deprived of the crown because of his deformity. This
turned
> out to be nonsense on investigation, but by then Bolingbroke had
> already made himself king.
> This is relevant to our previous discussion, if you think about it.
> In turning Richard into a hunchback, and claiming the hump as an
> outward sign of inner deformity which made him unfit to be king,
> Henry would also have undermined the Edmund Crouchback claim. If it
> had indeed been right to debar Edmund Crouchback because of his
> dformity, then Blanche of Lancaster's female offspring had no
> superior rights to the descendants of Gaunt's male issue by other
> wives.
>
> I have a feeling that Philippa may have been the elder of Gaunt's
> Lancastrian daughters. This is why there was periodic concern on
the
> part of English royal lines to marry her descendents. Duke John of
> Exeter's second wife was a legitimised daughter of the King of
> Portugal, for instance. Richard himself was negotiating for a
> Portugese bride after Anne's death.
>
> Marie
>

I read somewhere that it was unclear whether Edmund Crouchback was
so-called because he was hunchbacked or because, as a crusader, he wore
a cross on his surcoat.



theblackprussian wrote:

> What you say is true in regard to the Lancastrian claim to the Crown
> through Edward III, but the point I was making in regard to Exeter
> and the Potuguese line was also in respect of the Duchy of Lancaster
> estates Gaunt aquired through his marriage to Blanche. It is only
> Gaunt's descendents from this marriage who had hereditary claim on
> these estates, those by Katherine Swynford (including Tudor) had none.
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > The true (or true spurious) Lancastrian claim did onl rest in the
> > issue of Blanche of Lancaster, as Henry IV claimed that her
> ancestor
> > Edmund Crouchback had been older than his brother (Edward I, wasn't
> > it), but deprived of the crown because of his deformity. This
> turned
> > out to be nonsense on investigation, but by then Bolingbroke had
> > already made himself king.
> > This is relevant to our previous discussion, if you think about it.
> > In turning Richard into a hunchback, and claiming the hump as an
> > outward sign of inner deformity which made him unfit to be king,
> > Henry would also have undermined the Edmund Crouchback claim. If it
> > had indeed been right to debar Edmund Crouchback because of his
> > dformity, then Blanche of Lancaster's female offspring had no
> > superior rights to the descendants of Gaunt's male issue by other
> > wives.
> >
> > I have a feeling that Philippa may have been the elder of Gaunt's
> > Lancastrian daughters. This is why there was periodic concern on
> the
> > part of English royal lines to marry her descendents. Duke John of
> > Exeter's second wife was a legitimised daughter of the King of
> > Portugal, for instance. Richard himself was negotiating for a
> > Portugese bride after Anne's death.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that when he became King Richard III
awarded
> the Exeter estates to the Earl of Westmoreland. This should have
> bound the Earl to the regime in the same way as granting the
Mowbray
> estates to Howard and Berkeley, though historians seem unsure as to
> weather or not Westmoreland actually turned up at Bosworth.

Richard didn't do that, in fact, though he might have done given time.

Westmorland was in fact the "Lord Neville" to whom Richard wrote in
panic for aid in June of 1483. Westmorland didn't, by the way,
inherit his title from his grandfather - Anne Holland's husband had
only been Lord Neville too - but from his uncle, who died in 1484. He
was certainly a long-standing supporter - dare I say, friend? - of
Richard, and I think when Richard put in that letter "I hope so to
remember you as shall be to the making of you and yours" he must have
been hinting at the Exeter inheritance. However, he did not in fact
restore this to Westmorland. Perhaps he would have got round to it if
he'd survived Bosworth, or perhaps he began to see problems. The
inheritance of the Exeter estates by Anne St Leger rested on Henry
Holland's attainder and the subsequent settlement of the title and
estates on his wife Anne of York in her own right. Parliamentary
restoration to Westmorland of the duchy of Exeter inheritance might
have entailed reversing the last duke's attainder, which would also
have restored to Westmorland his Lancastrian claim. On balance, I
think Richard probably wanted to shelve this until his throne was
more secure.

I don't think there's any reason to doubt that Westmorland was at
Bosworth on Richard's side. I think it is Colin Richmond who has done
most to cast doubt on this (his contribution to 'Richard III,
Loyalty, Lordship and Law'), but if you read his footnote you see he
has no grounds for questioning it other than a footnote in an earlier
work by Lander listing peers who fought for Richard at Bosworth; the
list, for which Lander gave no source, consists of ten names and
doesn't include Westmorland. Richmond (& Pugh) go with this, dare I
suggest, because they don't like Richard. Pugh, Richmond relates,
argued that the list of peers present given in Harley 542 is
unreliable. Come again? The MS in question is 'The Ballad of
Bosworthe Feilde', which was probably written by an eye-witness
amongst the Stanley troops, and it is pretty definite, not only about
Westmorland being their, but about his feelings, viz:

"the Erle of Lincolne wold not spare,
the Erle of Northumberland ready bowne,
the Erle of westmoreland great othes sware,
all they said Richard shold Keepe his crowne."

Particularly in the light of Henry Tudor's treatment of Westmorland
after Bosworth, surely we can ditch Richmond and Pugh's doubts, which
fly in the face of an eye-witness account and for which their only
evidence is an unreferenced list in a 20th-century work. (I'm not
even clear that Lander himself necessarily saw the list as exclusive -
I haven't seen it first-hand.)
Evidently, fighting for richard at Bosworth wasn't something people
could afford to go round bragging about afterwards; fortunately, a
little deeper digging is beginning to indicate that a lot more people
probably showed (and died) on Richard's side than the traditionalists
have liked to believe. The number of men who according to the records
died on 21st August that year (safe from any imputation of treason)
is remarkable.

Marie

Marie

--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that it was unclear whether Edmund Crouchback was
> so-called because he was hunchbacked or because, as a crusader, he
wore
> a cross on his surcoat.

I was looking up the word crouchback in the complete DNB recently.
Apparently this suggestion first surfaced very late - 18th century, I
think, and the compilers could find no prior reference to the use of
the word in this sense. Certainly Bolingbroke believed that Edmund
had been a hunchback, and that this is why he had been passed off as
the younger child and denied the throne.
>
>
>
> theblackprussian wrote:
>
> > What you say is true in regard to the Lancastrian claim to the
Crown
> > through Edward III, but the point I was making in regard to Exeter
> > and the Potuguese line was also in respect of the Duchy of
Lancaster
> > estates Gaunt aquired through his marriage to Blanche. It is only
> > Gaunt's descendents from this marriage who had hereditary claim on
> > these estates, those by Katherine Swynford (including Tudor) had
none.

Yes, sorry I missed your point on this. Edward IV seems to have
worked on the principal that, once estates and title had merged in
the crown they remained merged in the crown. I suppose if anyone were
to work out the rightful claimant to the duchy they might have to
start with dividing it between the heirs of Gaunt's two daughters, as
with daughters the normal rule was not primogeniture but equal
division between them. Hence it would have been a very messy claim
for anyone to make, though I guess Philippa's side would have been
ignored as unwanted foreign interference. You're right, of course, it
is possible in theory that Westmorland could have claimed half or all
of the duchy of Lancaster rather than the throne if Exeter's
attainder had been reversed. That would have been catastrophic
enough.

I've often wondered what Exeter was thinking in 1454. The indictment
by York's commission says he was claiming the throne. Lander, I
think, suggested he really wanted the protectorate as the bext adult
member of the house of Lancaster. However, if the indictments are
correct, he was actually arraying his men in duchy of Lancaster
livery. How could he claim the duchy of Lancaster during the lifetime
of Henry VI and Prince Edward, and not be suggesting a claim to the
throne? How could he claim it at all at that time? Were York's
indictments simply all smear campaign, or is there something we don't
know about? Were there ever rumours that Henry VI wasn't Henry V's
son, for instance? Katherine de Valois does seem to have gained a bit
of a reputation herself, after all.

What was in his head all those years later, when he was enduring
exile and hardship for the sake of Henry VI and Prince Edward?

Marie

Not trying to blow too far off course here, but is it possible the
allegation that Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I
originally made in order to replace Edward II with his cousin, Thomas of
Lancaster. I have no support for this conjecture, but perhaps Thomas had
designs on the crown and needed a rationalization.

The Lancasters are an interesting bunch, and certainly made it back into
the main Plantagenet branch with the marriage of Blanche to John of Gaunt.

Is there a biography of Henry of Grosmont? He certainly helped make
Edward III's early life a little easier.

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > I read somewhere that it was unclear whether Edmund Crouchback was
> > so-called because he was hunchbacked or because, as a crusader, he
> wore
> > a cross on his surcoat.
>
> I was looking up the word crouchback in the complete DNB recently.
> Apparently this suggestion first surfaced very late - 18th century, I
> think, and the compilers could find no prior reference to the use of
> the word in this sense. Certainly Bolingbroke believed that Edmund
> had been a hunchback, and that this is why he had been passed off as
> the younger child and denied the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> > > What you say is true in regard to the Lancastrian claim to the
> Crown
> > > through Edward III, but the point I was making in regard to Exeter
> > > and the Potuguese line was also in respect of the Duchy of
> Lancaster
> > > estates Gaunt aquired through his marriage to Blanche. It is only
> > > Gaunt's descendents from this marriage who had hereditary claim on
> > > these estates, those by Katherine Swynford (including Tudor) had
> none.
>
> Yes, sorry I missed your point on this. Edward IV seems to have
> worked on the principal that, once estates and title had merged in
> the crown they remained merged in the crown. I suppose if anyone were
> to work out the rightful claimant to the duchy they might have to
> start with dividing it between the heirs of Gaunt's two daughters, as
> with daughters the normal rule was not primogeniture but equal
> division between them. Hence it would have been a very messy claim
> for anyone to make, though I guess Philippa's side would have been
> ignored as unwanted foreign interference. You're right, of course, it
> is possible in theory that Westmorland could have claimed half or all
> of the duchy of Lancaster rather than the throne if Exeter's
> attainder had been reversed. That would have been catastrophic
> enough.
>
> I've often wondered what Exeter was thinking in 1454. The indictment
> by York's commission says he was claiming the throne. Lander, I
> think, suggested he really wanted the protectorate as the bext adult
> member of the house of Lancaster. However, if the indictments are
> correct, he was actually arraying his men in duchy of Lancaster
> livery. How could he claim the duchy of Lancaster during the lifetime
> of Henry VI and Prince Edward, and not be suggesting a claim to the
> throne? How could he claim it at all at that time? Were York's
> indictments simply all smear campaign, or is there something we don't
> know about? Were there ever rumours that Henry VI wasn't Henry V's
> son, for instance? Katherine de Valois does seem to have gained a bit
> of a reputation herself, after all.
>
> What was in his head all those years later, when he was enduring
> exile and hardship for the sake of Henry VI and Prince Edward?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

There is a biography of Henry:

The King's lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310-1361 by Kenneth Alan Fowler

There's also a study of Thomas of Lancaster by J. R. Maddicott. I don't believe Thomas ever raised the allegation about Edmund being older, but Maddicott would probably be the place to look to see if he did.

Susan Higginbotham
www.susanhigginbotham.com
>
> From: William Barber <bbarber@...>
> Date: 2005/11/16 Wed AM 09:24:39 EST
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: True Lancastrians, attainders
> and the Portugese
>
> Not trying to blow too far off course here, but is it possible the
allegation that Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I
originally made in order to replace Edward II with his cousin, Thomas of
Lancaster. I have no support for this conjecture, but perhaps Thomas had
designs on the crown and needed a rationalization.

The Lancasters are an interesting bunch, and certainly made it back into
the main Plantagenet branch with the marriage of Blanche to John of Gaunt.

Is there a biography of Henry of Grosmont? He certainly helped make
Edward III's early life a little easier.

As it happens, I'm in the midst of some academic research on modern royal finances, which involves the Duchy of Lancaster since its income forms the Privy Purse which provides part of the funding for the royal family's public duties. According to Halsbury's Laws, by a charter which forms the constitutional basis for the administration of the duchy, Henry IV ordained that the duchy and its assets should not merge with the Crown but be held separately. Following his accession in 1485 and by charter under the authority of Parliament, Henry VII settled the Duchy on himself and his heirs ‘as separate from the Crown of England…, and in as large and ample a manner as Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI had it’. In the Duchy of Lancaster Case it was held that the Duchy was vested in the monarch in his natural capacity and not in his political capacity in right of the Crown,[1] but doubt has been cast upon this.[2]


---------------------------------

[1] (1561) 1 Plowd 212 @221.


[2] Alcock v Cooke (1829) 5 Bing 340, @352, 354. See 12(1) Halsbury’s Laws 300.





Not sure whether this alters the position in relation to the inheritance of the Duchy before 1485.



Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter seems to have been rather a head case, to use a nice politically incorrect term, and inconsistency over his position between 1454 and post-1461.



I'm not aware of any suggestions that Henry VI was not fathered by Henry V, which is quite surprising when you consider how unalike they were, that Henry V and Katharine of Valois spent very little time together and Katharine had quite a racy career after she was widowed. Henry V also never saw Henry VI; that he never bothered to arrange for the infant to be brought to him in France suggests a curious indifference to his first-born son and heir apparent.



Ann

Many thanks.

boswellbaxter@... wrote:

> There is a biography of Henry:
>
> The King's lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster,
> 1310-1361 by Kenneth Alan Fowler
>
> There's also a study of Thomas of Lancaster by J. R. Maddicott. I
> don't believe Thomas ever raised the allegation about Edmund being
> older, but Maddicott would probably be the place to look to see if he did.
>
> Susan Higginbotham
> www.susanhigginbotham.com
> >
> > From: William Barber <bbarber@...>
> > Date: 2005/11/16 Wed AM 09:24:39 EST
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: True Lancastrians,
> attainders
> > and the Portugese
> >
> > Not trying to blow too far off course here, but is it possible the
> allegation that Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I
> originally made in order to replace Edward II with his cousin, Thomas of
> Lancaster. I have no support for this conjecture, but perhaps Thomas had
> designs on the crown and needed a rationalization.
>
> The Lancasters are an interesting bunch, and certainly made it back into
> the main Plantagenet branch with the marriage of Blanche to John of Gaunt.
>
> Is there a biography of Henry of Grosmont? He certainly helped make
> Edward III's early life a little easier.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> As it happens, I'm in the midst of some academic research on modern
royal finances, which involves the Duchy of Lancaster since its
income forms the Privy Purse which provides part of the funding for
the royal family's public duties. According to Halsbury's Laws, by a
charter which forms the constitutional basis for the administration
of the duchy, Henry IV ordained that the duchy and its assets should
not merge with the Crown but be held separately. Following his
accession in 1485 and by charter under the authority of Parliament,
Henry VII settled the Duchy on himself and his heirs `as separate
from the Crown of England…, and in as large and ample a manner as
Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI had it'. In the Duchy of Lancaster
Case it was held that the Duchy was vested in the monarch in his
natural capacity and not in his political capacity in right of the
Crown,[1] but doubt has been cast upon this.[2]

That's right. I just had a browse through my Rolls of Parliament CD,
as it occurred to me that the passge of the duchy through the crown
would affect the situation.
Henry IV's legislation protected the duchy to the crown (which again
puts Exeter's rebellion in an interesting light). The situation was
further strengthened by Edward IV's attainder of Henry VI in 1461, an
attainder which, so far as I can see, Henry VII did not reverse
despite the way the text of the 1485 parliament lauds Henry VI and
looks back to him as Henry VII's last true predecessor. And, as you,
say, Henry specifically had his title to the duchy written into one
of the acts of that parliament.
He knew what he was doing, did the Tudor person, it has to be said.
All in all, short of a revolution there's no way anyone was going to
get the duchy of Lancaster out of the crown at any stage,

Marie
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>.
>
> I have a feeling that Philippa may have been the elder of Gaunt's
> Lancastrian daughters. This is why there was periodic concern on the
> part of English royal lines to marry her descendents.

The three online sources I quickly checked all say Philippa was his
eldest child by his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster. That fits with
the typical naming pattern for children, since Gaunt's mother was
Philippa of Hainault.

Katy

--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that it was unclear whether Edmund Crouchback was
> so-called because he was hunchbacked or because, as a crusader, he
wore
> a cross on his surcoat.


I've also read this but to me it fails the "Remarkableness" litmus test.

Lots of men went on Crusades and returned to tell about it. Are there
any others we know of who were known as crouchback for the rest of
their days? I can't think of any. Having gone on Crusade was not
remarkable enough to attach itself to a very prominent -- royal -- man
to identify him. No one had any trouble keeping men with identical
names straight...witness John Paston's sons John and John, and Isabel
Despencer's two husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp.

Katy

When faced with statements such as the one about Crouchback, I tend to
fall back on Occam's Razer which states:

*One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of
entities required to explain anything.*

Hence I would think that Crouchback was hunchbacked.



oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > I read somewhere that it was unclear whether Edmund Crouchback was
> > so-called because he was hunchbacked or because, as a crusader, he
> wore
> > a cross on his surcoat.
>
>
> I've also read this but to me it fails the "Remarkableness" litmus test.
>
> Lots of men went on Crusades and returned to tell about it. Are there
> any others we know of who were known as crouchback for the rest of
> their days? I can't think of any. Having gone on Crusade was not
> remarkable enough to attach itself to a very prominent -- royal -- man
> to identify him. No one had any trouble keeping men with identical
> names straight...witness John Paston's sons John and John, and Isabel
> Despencer's two husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

There is a biography of Henry:

The King's lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310-1361 by Kenneth Alan Fowler

There's also a study of Thomas of Lancaster by J. R. Maddicott. I don't believe Thomas ever raised the allegation about Edmund being older, but Maddicott would probably be the place to look to see if he did.

Susan Higginbotham
www.susanhigginbotham.com
>
> From: William Barber <bbarber@...>
> Date: 2005/11/16 Wed AM 09:24:39 EST
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: True Lancastrians, attainders
> and the Portugese
>
> Not trying to blow too far off course here, but is it possible the
allegation that Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I
originally made in order to replace Edward II with his cousin, Thomas of
Lancaster. I have no support for this conjecture, but perhaps Thomas had
designs on the crown and needed a rationalization.

The Lancasters are an interesting bunch, and certainly made it back into
the main Plantagenet branch with the marriage of Blanche to John of Gaunt.

Is there a biography of Henry of Grosmont? He certainly helped make
Edward III's early life a little easier.

--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> When faced with statements such as the one about Crouchback, I tend
to
> fall back on Occam's Razer which states:
>
> *One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of
> entities required to explain anything.*


A more colloquial version of the principle of Occam's Razor
(essentially that the most commonplace explanation is also the most
likely) I heard from a teacher is that if you hear approaching
hoofbeats, what comes around the bend is more likely to be a horse than
a zebra. (Assuming you are not on safari, of course, in which the
razor also applies because zebras are more common than horses on the
African veldt.)

Katy

Nevertheless Edward IV did use the Duchy estates as a source of
patronage. For example, Richard of Gloucester was given the honours
of Halton, Clitheroe and Ogmore from the Duchy. Clarence and later
Hasting were given Duchy estates in the north midlands, for example
Tutbury. And of course Richard eventually agreed to strip out the
Bohun lands for Buckingham. So the estates were never treated as a
sacrosanct unit, even if Kings were always likely to keep the bulk
for themselves. Also, the Earldoms of Derby, Leicester and Lincoln
were detached from the Duchy for "new" families at various times.


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > As it happens, I'm in the midst of some academic research on
modern
> royal finances, which involves the Duchy of Lancaster since its
> income forms the Privy Purse which provides part of the funding for
> the royal family's public duties. According to Halsbury's Laws, by
a
> charter which forms the constitutional basis for the administration
> of the duchy, Henry IV ordained that the duchy and its assets
should
> not merge with the Crown but be held separately. Following his
> accession in 1485 and by charter under the authority of Parliament,
> Henry VII settled the Duchy on himself and his heirs `as separate
> from the Crown of England…, and in as large and ample a manner as
> Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI had it'. In the Duchy of Lancaster
> Case it was held that the Duchy was vested in the monarch in his
> natural capacity and not in his political capacity in right of the
> Crown,[1] but doubt has been cast upon this.[2]
>
> That's right. I just had a browse through my Rolls of Parliament
CD,
> as it occurred to me that the passge of the duchy through the crown
> would affect the situation.
> Henry IV's legislation protected the duchy to the crown (which
again
> puts Exeter's rebellion in an interesting light). The situation was
> further strengthened by Edward IV's attainder of Henry VI in 1461,
an
> attainder which, so far as I can see, Henry VII did not reverse
> despite the way the text of the 1485 parliament lauds Henry VI and
> looks back to him as Henry VII's last true predecessor. And, as
you,
> say, Henry specifically had his title to the duchy written into one
> of the acts of that parliament.
> He knew what he was doing, did the Tudor person, it has to be said.
> All in all, short of a revolution there's no way anyone was going
to
> get the duchy of Lancaster out of the crown at any stage,
>
> Marie
> >
> >
>