Who's Hoo?!
Who's Hoo?!
2005-12-12 19:39:32
Perhaps Hever Castle has an official website. I shall check.
----- Original Message -----
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Lord Hoo and Hastings..and MORE!!!
When I say the brother never held the lordship, I mean he never bore the title Lord Hoo. Legally the grant of the castle would seem to be hereditory rather than a life grant. However it may still have been subject to an act of resumption. The brother of Lord Hoo seems to have died without children, as the two Hoo sisters are described as "co-heirs of Lord Hoo".
The eldest married into the Boleyns, and this raises the question of Hever castle, which some authorities insist was obtained by Boleyn through this marriage. Others say that the Boleyns bought the castle, but if so from whom? The last reference to it's ownership before the Boleyns mentions Lord Cobham, but not Lord Hoo.
It was here that Henry VIII courted his second wife (after bedding her sister), and this is one of those examples where its difficult to find the earlier history of the place amid all the blab about the Tudors. (Kimbolton is another example; yes, we KNOW Katherine of Aragon lived here, but what about before that?)
Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
This creates further mysteries.
Thomas Hoo died in 1454.
Did Edward IV actually take the Lordship of the Manor from Hoo's
brother or was it vacant already by his reign (which didn't begin
until 1461).
If he did, were the Hoos Lancastrians who lost it for partisan
reasons?
If the brother never held the Lordship then Edward could not have
taken it away. Perhips he held it briefly - there is similar
confusion over Roger, Baron Stafford (d. 1640), whose cousin's
granddaughter Mary (and husband) was given the title (upgraded to a
Viscountcy), even when tradesmen children of his sister Jane were
alive.
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> I'm aware of the distinction between the two men (see discussion in
> previous posts), my question is in regard to the castle and
Lordship
> of Hastings, Sussex.
> It seems the grant of that Lordship to Thomas Hoo was the reason he
> was entitled Lord Hoo AND Hastings (rather than any connection with
> the Hastings family).
> But, since the Lordship was later granted by Edward to William
> Hastings of Ashby, he must somehow have deprived the Hoo heirs of
> what had been granted to Lord Hoo by Henry VI.
> I don't think the titles did exist simultaneously, as Lord Hoo and
> Hastings died in 1454 (his brother doesn't seem to have born the
> title), and William wasn't enobled until after Edward became King.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" I,
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, it's not as simple as that. The man in question was
Thomas,
> > Lord Hoo of Hastings whereas the one we know more of was William,
> > Lord Hastings of Ashby de la Zouche. Totally unrelated, both
titles
> > can exist simultaneously. Similarly, today we have a Duke of
> Somerset
> > whose surname is Seymour and another peer whose surname is
> Somerset.
> > Confusing but totally distinct.
> >
> > --- In , "theblackprussian"
> > <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Great, that answers the Hastings mystery. It looks like this is
> > > another example of Edward IV cheating heirs of their
inheritance
> > > though, as he seems to have granted Hastings to his bed buddy
> > William
> > > Hastings when he made him a Lord.
>
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
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.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo!
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Lord Hoo and Hastings..and MORE!!!
When I say the brother never held the lordship, I mean he never bore the title Lord Hoo. Legally the grant of the castle would seem to be hereditory rather than a life grant. However it may still have been subject to an act of resumption. The brother of Lord Hoo seems to have died without children, as the two Hoo sisters are described as "co-heirs of Lord Hoo".
The eldest married into the Boleyns, and this raises the question of Hever castle, which some authorities insist was obtained by Boleyn through this marriage. Others say that the Boleyns bought the castle, but if so from whom? The last reference to it's ownership before the Boleyns mentions Lord Cobham, but not Lord Hoo.
It was here that Henry VIII courted his second wife (after bedding her sister), and this is one of those examples where its difficult to find the earlier history of the place amid all the blab about the Tudors. (Kimbolton is another example; yes, we KNOW Katherine of Aragon lived here, but what about before that?)
Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
This creates further mysteries.
Thomas Hoo died in 1454.
Did Edward IV actually take the Lordship of the Manor from Hoo's
brother or was it vacant already by his reign (which didn't begin
until 1461).
If he did, were the Hoos Lancastrians who lost it for partisan
reasons?
If the brother never held the Lordship then Edward could not have
taken it away. Perhips he held it briefly - there is similar
confusion over Roger, Baron Stafford (d. 1640), whose cousin's
granddaughter Mary (and husband) was given the title (upgraded to a
Viscountcy), even when tradesmen children of his sister Jane were
alive.
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> I'm aware of the distinction between the two men (see discussion in
> previous posts), my question is in regard to the castle and
Lordship
> of Hastings, Sussex.
> It seems the grant of that Lordship to Thomas Hoo was the reason he
> was entitled Lord Hoo AND Hastings (rather than any connection with
> the Hastings family).
> But, since the Lordship was later granted by Edward to William
> Hastings of Ashby, he must somehow have deprived the Hoo heirs of
> what had been granted to Lord Hoo by Henry VI.
> I don't think the titles did exist simultaneously, as Lord Hoo and
> Hastings died in 1454 (his brother doesn't seem to have born the
> title), and William wasn't enobled until after Edward became King.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" I,
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, it's not as simple as that. The man in question was
Thomas,
> > Lord Hoo of Hastings whereas the one we know more of was William,
> > Lord Hastings of Ashby de la Zouche. Totally unrelated, both
titles
> > can exist simultaneously. Similarly, today we have a Duke of
> Somerset
> > whose surname is Seymour and another peer whose surname is
> Somerset.
> > Confusing but totally distinct.
> >
> > --- In , "theblackprussian"
> > <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Great, that answers the Hastings mystery. It looks like this is
> > > another example of Edward IV cheating heirs of their
inheritance
> > > though, as he seems to have granted Hastings to his bed buddy
> > William
> > > Hastings when he made him a Lord.
>
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
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.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo!
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who's Hoo?!
2005-12-14 11:25:16
There are numerous websites about Hever castle, all of which skip
over it's history until the Boleyns. The general consensus is that
they bought the castle in 1462, but none say from whom.
The suggestion elsewhere that it was inherited through the Hoo
heiress seems to be incorrect, though, so I'm no nearer tracking down
the owner for 1453.
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Hever Castle has an official website. I shall check.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: david rayner
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Lord Hoo and
Hastings..and MORE!!!
>
>
> When I say the brother never held the lordship, I mean he never
bore the title Lord Hoo. Legally the grant of the castle would seem
to be hereditory rather than a life grant. However it may still have
been subject to an act of resumption. The brother of Lord Hoo seems
to have died without children, as the two Hoo sisters are described
as "co-heirs of Lord Hoo".
> The eldest married into the Boleyns, and this raises the
question of Hever castle, which some authorities insist was obtained
by Boleyn through this marriage. Others say that the Boleyns bought
the castle, but if so from whom? The last reference to it's
ownership before the Boleyns mentions Lord Cobham, but not Lord Hoo.
> It was here that Henry VIII courted his second wife (after
bedding her sister), and this is one of those examples where its
difficult to find the earlier history of the place amid all the blab
about the Tudors. (Kimbolton is another example; yes, we KNOW
Katherine of Aragon lived here, but what about before that?)
>
> Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> This creates further mysteries.
> Thomas Hoo died in 1454.
> Did Edward IV actually take the Lordship of the Manor from Hoo's
> brother or was it vacant already by his reign (which didn't begin
> until 1461).
> If he did, were the Hoos Lancastrians who lost it for partisan
> reasons?
> If the brother never held the Lordship then Edward could not have
> taken it away. Perhips he held it briefly - there is similar
> confusion over Roger, Baron Stafford (d. 1640), whose cousin's
> granddaughter Mary (and husband) was given the title (upgraded to
a
> Viscountcy), even when tradesmen children of his sister Jane were
> alive.
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm aware of the distinction between the two men (see
discussion in
> > previous posts), my question is in regard to the castle and
> Lordship
> > of Hastings, Sussex.
> > It seems the grant of that Lordship to Thomas Hoo was the
reason he
> > was entitled Lord Hoo AND Hastings (rather than any connection
with
> > the Hastings family).
> > But, since the Lordship was later granted by Edward to William
> > Hastings of Ashby, he must somehow have deprived the Hoo heirs
of
> > what had been granted to Lord Hoo by Henry VI.
> > I don't think the titles did exist simultaneously, as Lord Hoo
and
> > Hastings died in 1454 (his brother doesn't seem to have born
the
> > title), and William wasn't enobled until after Edward became
King.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
I,
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sorry, it's not as simple as that. The man in question was
> Thomas,
> > > Lord Hoo of Hastings whereas the one we know more of was
William,
> > > Lord Hastings of Ashby de la Zouche. Totally unrelated, both
> titles
> > > can exist simultaneously. Similarly, today we have a Duke of
> > Somerset
> > > whose surname is Seymour and another peer whose surname is
> > Somerset.
> > > Confusing but totally distinct.
> > >
> > > --- In
, "theblackprussian"
> > > <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Great, that answers the Hastings mystery. It looks like
this is
> > > > another example of Edward IV cheating heirs of their
> inheritance
> > > > though, as he seems to have granted Hastings to his bed
buddy
> > > William
> > > > Hastings when he made him a Lord.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from
Yahoo!
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
over it's history until the Boleyns. The general consensus is that
they bought the castle in 1462, but none say from whom.
The suggestion elsewhere that it was inherited through the Hoo
heiress seems to be incorrect, though, so I'm no nearer tracking down
the owner for 1453.
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Hever Castle has an official website. I shall check.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: david rayner
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Lord Hoo and
Hastings..and MORE!!!
>
>
> When I say the brother never held the lordship, I mean he never
bore the title Lord Hoo. Legally the grant of the castle would seem
to be hereditory rather than a life grant. However it may still have
been subject to an act of resumption. The brother of Lord Hoo seems
to have died without children, as the two Hoo sisters are described
as "co-heirs of Lord Hoo".
> The eldest married into the Boleyns, and this raises the
question of Hever castle, which some authorities insist was obtained
by Boleyn through this marriage. Others say that the Boleyns bought
the castle, but if so from whom? The last reference to it's
ownership before the Boleyns mentions Lord Cobham, but not Lord Hoo.
> It was here that Henry VIII courted his second wife (after
bedding her sister), and this is one of those examples where its
difficult to find the earlier history of the place amid all the blab
about the Tudors. (Kimbolton is another example; yes, we KNOW
Katherine of Aragon lived here, but what about before that?)
>
> Stephen Lark <smlark@t...> wrote:
> This creates further mysteries.
> Thomas Hoo died in 1454.
> Did Edward IV actually take the Lordship of the Manor from Hoo's
> brother or was it vacant already by his reign (which didn't begin
> until 1461).
> If he did, were the Hoos Lancastrians who lost it for partisan
> reasons?
> If the brother never held the Lordship then Edward could not have
> taken it away. Perhips he held it briefly - there is similar
> confusion over Roger, Baron Stafford (d. 1640), whose cousin's
> granddaughter Mary (and husband) was given the title (upgraded to
a
> Viscountcy), even when tradesmen children of his sister Jane were
> alive.
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm aware of the distinction between the two men (see
discussion in
> > previous posts), my question is in regard to the castle and
> Lordship
> > of Hastings, Sussex.
> > It seems the grant of that Lordship to Thomas Hoo was the
reason he
> > was entitled Lord Hoo AND Hastings (rather than any connection
with
> > the Hastings family).
> > But, since the Lordship was later granted by Edward to William
> > Hastings of Ashby, he must somehow have deprived the Hoo heirs
of
> > what had been granted to Lord Hoo by Henry VI.
> > I don't think the titles did exist simultaneously, as Lord Hoo
and
> > Hastings died in 1454 (his brother doesn't seem to have born
the
> > title), and William wasn't enobled until after Edward became
King.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
I,
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sorry, it's not as simple as that. The man in question was
> Thomas,
> > > Lord Hoo of Hastings whereas the one we know more of was
William,
> > > Lord Hastings of Ashby de la Zouche. Totally unrelated, both
> titles
> > > can exist simultaneously. Similarly, today we have a Duke of
> > Somerset
> > > whose surname is Seymour and another peer whose surname is
> > Somerset.
> > > Confusing but totally distinct.
> > >
> > > --- In
, "theblackprussian"
> > > <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Great, that answers the Hastings mystery. It looks like
this is
> > > > another example of Edward IV cheating heirs of their
> inheritance
> > > > though, as he seems to have granted Hastings to his bed
buddy
> > > William
> > > > Hastings when he made him a Lord.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from
Yahoo!
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.