Katherine Woodville...a new villain???

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela

I believe I read about Buckingham's dissatisfaction with his marriage
in Pollard. It was stated that he felt she was much lower in rank
than he and that he had had to marry beneath him. Also, she did not
attend Richard's coronation. I think she stayed at Brecon. I assume
as the wife of a duke she would have had a major role to play if she
had attended.

However, she couldn't have been entirely unappealling because they had
several children. She was twice his age when they married and for
those days wouldn't she have been past her sell by date, given that
they may very well have had to wait a couple of years.

in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, ‘Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488’, EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's ‘English history’, ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, ‘Historia Richardi Tertii’, The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, ‘The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485’, The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall’s chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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

the line goes like this, Buckingham was a royal ward and placed in the
Queen's household. As a direct descendent of Edward III this would have
been bad enough for a proud young royal, but to then be told who he had
to marry, and finding that his future wife was to be one of the new
Queen's sisters, when everyone knew the king had married well below
himself must have come as a terrible indignity, possibly shameful to
one so proud.
That he had children with his wife is no real indication of any
emotional ties between them. Sex is sex, and was then! And as her
sister was still in sanctuary at the time of Richard's coronation makes
it seem logical that she was left at home. It would hardly have been
tactful for Buckingham to have appeared at the coronation with a
Woodville on his arm.
Paul


On Feb 5, 2006, at 00:19, dixonian2004 wrote:

> I believe I read about Buckingham's dissatisfaction with his marriage
> in Pollard. It was stated that he felt she was much lower in rank
> than he and that he had had to marry beneath him. Also, she did not
> attend Richard's coronation. I think she stayed at Brecon. I assume
> as the wife of a duke she would have had a major role to play if she
> had attended.
>
> However, she couldn't have been entirely unappealling because they had
> several children. She was twice his age when they married and for
> those days wouldn't she have been past her sell by date, given that
> they may very well have had to wait a couple of years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:


[a long piece on Katherine Woodville, accompanied -- bless you!} -- by
a bibliograpjy.]

Thank you for adding that to our body of information.

Katy

Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George Smith.)

I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.

Neil

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

Castelli only states that she was born "before 1458".
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George Smith.)

I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.

Neil

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take risks..go against authority.

moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham, remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell him where to get off.

the return of her children and servants is not something the widow of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?

on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))

a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?

why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives? was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?

the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.

k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458 birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.

i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.

i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.

wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also 1472/3. and bef. 1477.

henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.

katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.

again douglas provides us with excellent research

Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390 (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).

Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe, published in 1978].

Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18 May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3 (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royalancestry@...

why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?

he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some guilt with regards to her death?

wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with k. she died about a year after they were married.

wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k. originated?

roslyn

Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George Smith.)

I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.

Neil

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early
historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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

---------------------------------
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.


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

Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who died
in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.

fayre rose wrote:

> katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> risks..go against authority.
>
> moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> him where to get off.
>
> the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
>
> on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
>
> a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
>
> why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
>
> the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
>
> k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
>
> i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
>
> i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
>
> wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
>
> henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
>
> katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
>
> again douglas provides us with excellent research
>
> Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
>
> Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> published in 1978].
>
> Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> E-mail: royalancestry@...
>
> why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
>
> he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> guilt with regards to her death?
>
> wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> k. she died about a year after they were married.
>
> wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> originated?
>
> roslyn
>
> Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> Smith.)
>
> I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> villain???
>
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>
> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> of 200 marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> from the same odnb article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> will requests masses be said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early
> historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Tompsett says the same as Castelli i.e. before 1458.
Perhaps you should try "The Staffords" by J.M.Robinson as it has a whole chapter on the first two Dukes and another on the third.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who died
in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.

fayre rose wrote:

> katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> risks..go against authority.
>
> moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> him where to get off.
>
> the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
>
> on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
>
> a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
>
> why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
>
> the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
>
> k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
>
> i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
>
> i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
>
> wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
>
> henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
>
> katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
>
> again douglas provides us with excellent research
>
> Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
>
> Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> published in 1978].
>
> Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> E-mail: royalancestry@...
>
> why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
>
> he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> guilt with regards to her death?
>
> wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> k. she died about a year after they were married.
>
> wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> originated?
>
> roslyn
>
> Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> Smith.)
>
> I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> villain???
>
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>
> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> of 200 marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> from the same odnb article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> will requests masses be said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early
> historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

I have to agree with you that the fact that Katherine marries a third time, fairly quickly after the death of her second husband and without licence implies that she was a woman who knew her own mind and it was a love match whereas Jasper (and possibly Henry?) were political matches only with not much passion there - but that is pure supposition on my part.

With regard to Katherine's marriage with Henry - she was described as Duch of Buc the younger in the manuscript I mentioned earlier so she had to be either wedded to Henry or at least betrothed to him by this time. The couple lived at court in the Queen's household for most of the their childhood, I think. However, it would seem to have taken some time for Katherine to produce their first child (if Edward was indeed their first child and they didn't have earlier children who died in infancy and were not recorded) but of course this is not uncommon in those days.

Unfortunately women of high birth are often not recorded as their menfolk are. Chauvinism ruled then - they had their political worth (especially if they were heiresses) but they were of lesser note than their male peers so often left out of the records.

If Katherine was a capable Woodville, I wonder how she felt about Henry? We know little about this chap except that Edward IV gave him no responsibility which speaks volumes in my book (and would explain why he was so quick to aid Richard in 1483 - he probably thought his 'time' had come now that Edward was out of the way). Did she find him irritating/annoying? I would love to know what their relationship was like. Sadly we'll probably never know.

With regard to her not fleeing with Henry in 1483, I think she was probably obeying orders. Having his wife and son with him would have encumbered him and he needed to move fast to escape Richard's men. She was probably only too pleased to go into hiding - to be found with her husband may have put her under more suspicion by the king.

I like your comment about Elizabeth. I have my own picture of her and giving up the trappings of court for too long a period would not suit 'my' Elizabeth Woodville! :-)

You obviously have a keen interest in Katherine Woodville (as do I but I have not had the luxury of researching her as you seem to have done). If you are a member of the Society, have you considered writing an article on her for The Bulletin?
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take risks..go against authority.

moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham, remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell him where to get off.

the return of her children and servants is not something the widow of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?

on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))

a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?

why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives? was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?

the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.

k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458 birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.

i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.

i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.

wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also 1472/3. and bef. 1477.

henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.

katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.

again douglas provides us with excellent research

Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390 (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).

Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe, published in 1978].

Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18 May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3 (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royalancestry@...

why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?

he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some guilt with regards to her death?

wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with k. she died about a year after they were married.

wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k. originated?

roslyn

Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George Smith.)

I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.

Neil

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early
historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

All I can say is that she could not have been more than 10 - 12 at the most if she was a slight girl - to have someone bear her on his shoulders at Elizabeth's coronation. The manuscript which describes this lovely picture of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham being carried on high in the procession is a contemporary one so I am pretty sure that Henry and Katherine were well matched in ages - with Katherine perhaps being slightly older.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Tompsett says the same as Castelli i.e. before 1458.
Perhaps you should try "The Staffords" by J.M.Robinson as it has a whole chapter on the first two Dukes and another on the third.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who died
in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.

fayre rose wrote:

> katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> risks..go against authority.
>
> moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> him where to get off.
>
> the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
>
> on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
>
> a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
>
> why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
>
> the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
>
> k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
>
> i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
>
> i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
>
> wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
>
> henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
>
> katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
>
> again douglas provides us with excellent research
>
> Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
>
> Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> published in 1978].
>
> Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> E-mail: royalancestry@...
>
> why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
>
> he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> guilt with regards to her death?
>
> wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> k. she died about a year after they were married.
>
> wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> originated?
>
> roslyn
>
> Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> Smith.)
>
> I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> villain???
>
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>
> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> of 200 marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> from the same odnb article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> will requests masses be said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early
> historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

>
> the return of her children and servants is not something the
widow of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it
a reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?

It sits oddly, doesn't it, with the servant's memoir I sent you
(Roslyn) offline, where the lady reminisced about helping the Duchess
hide the Duke's eldest son, moving him on and disguising him as a
girl, because Richard had put all Buckingham's children on
the "Wanted" proclamations and Sir James Tyrell and his underling
Wellesbourne were hard on their heels. The Buckingham children
sctually weren't included in any proclamations, and a month later the
Duchess had done a deal with richard to bring them all to London. So
what was going on? Could Tyrell possibly have been searching for
other children entirely?

> k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited
as 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.

> i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.

I've also read complete lists of birth years for all Elizabeth's
siblings, but I've also read that these are basically invented and
not worth the paper they're written on. There are no contemporary
documents, I think, giving notification of their births. I think it's
unlikely tht Elizabeth Woodville would have married Buckingham to a
sister 12 years older than him when she had very much younger ones
who would better suit. Neil's evidence from the coronation would seem
to clinch it for me.
The Monmouthshire one sounds like confusion with her husband.
>
> i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral
files.
>
> wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but
also 1472/3. and bef. 1477.

I'll look it out, but actually there is documentary evidence, and it
was definitely mid 1460s, at Greenwich, I seem to remember.

>
> henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
>> why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?

Actually, this is quite quite normal. People expected to spent aeons
in Purgatory, and would frequently leave money for prayers for long-
dead family members.

> he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
guilt with regards to her death?
> wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none
with k. she died about a year after they were married.

My guess is they'd not been married long enough for the gloss to have
worn off - a bit like Henry VIII and Jane Seymour.

Marie

giving a child the same name as sibling, does not necessarily mean one previously named had died. this is how we got the names ted/ned/ed..liz/betty/bess..jim/james..peg/meg/maggie/margaret. kay/kate/kathy.

i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to find her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and friends..so the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that one to click in.

patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral stumper....go figure.

molly and polly for mary.

some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify which edward etc. in the family was being called.

however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy research/guestimations.

roslyn

William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who died
in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.

fayre rose wrote:

> katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> risks..go against authority.
>
> moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> him where to get off.
>
> the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
>
> on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
>
> a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
>
> why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
>
> the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
>
> k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
>
> i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
>
> i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
>
> wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
>
> henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
>
> katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
>
> again douglas provides us with excellent research
>
> Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
>
> Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> published in 1978].
>
> Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> E-mail: royalancestry@...
>
> why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
>
> he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> guilt with regards to her death?
>
> wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> k. she died about a year after they were married.
>
> wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> originated?
>
> roslyn
>
> Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> Smith.)
>
> I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> villain???
>
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>
> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> of 200 marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> from the same odnb article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> will requests masses be said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early
> historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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

---------------------------------
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.


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

I'm a bit of a name freak. Often wondered what dialectal anomaly came up
with the following:

William=Bill
Robert=Bob

I'll bet that there are a bunch more 'B' nicknames that have been lost
over the years. Of course there are tons of diminutives as well.

For some reason, where I grew up (Orangeville, Ontario. You'll know
where that is, rosylyn?), 'Jack' could be substituted for 'John'. Of
course, it's just as nuts that Jack (Jacques)=James. But then, at one
time, any stranger on the byways of France was called 'Jacques', or
'Jacques Bonhomme'.

How about Jennifer (Cornish?)=Guinevere (Welsh?). Hope I have it right.

Have a brand new grandson. His name is Gavin, and of course
'Gavin'='Gawain'. Haven't told my daughter that yet. Don't want to freak
her out too much. Since I'm a sucker for anything Arthurian, I'm very
pleased.



fayre rose wrote:

> giving a child the same name as sibling, does not necessarily mean one
> previously named had died. this is how we got the names
> ted/ned/ed..liz/betty/bess..jim/james..peg/meg/maggie/margaret.
> kay/kate/kathy.
>
> i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to find
> her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
> records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and
> friends..so the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that
> one to click in.
>
> patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
> stumper....go figure.
>
> molly and polly for mary.
>
> some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify which
> edward etc. in the family was being called.
>
> however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
> katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
> research/guestimations.
>
> roslyn
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who
> died
> in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
> name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> > risks..go against authority.
> >
> > moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> > remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> > a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> > in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> > him where to get off.
> >
> > the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> > of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> > reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> > influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
> >
> > on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> > sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
> >
> > a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> > iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
> >
> > why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> > was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
> >
> > the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> > most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
> >
> > k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> > i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> > 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> > birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
> >
> > i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> > 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> > until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
> >
> > i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> > age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
> >
> > wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> > 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
> >
> > henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
> >
> > katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> > occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
> >
> > again douglas provides us with excellent research
> >
> > Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> > (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> > Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> > a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> > (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
> >
> > Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> > Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> > is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> > modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> > Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> > for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> > published in 1978].
> >
> > Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> > May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> > documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> > (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> > source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> > Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
> >
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > E-mail: royalancestry@...
> >
> > why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> > katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> > 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> > any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
> >
> > he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> > katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> > guilt with regards to her death?
> >
> > wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> > k. she died about a year after they were married.
> >
> > wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> > where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> > originated?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> > Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> > Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> > contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> > Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> > in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> > have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> > contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> > Smith.)
> >
> > I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> > knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> > princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> > you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> > there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> > villain???
> >
> >
> > in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> > highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> > of the princes..
> >
> > what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> > something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> > iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> > e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
> >
> > katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> > dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> > simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> > tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
> >
> > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> > leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> > her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> > heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> > had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> > Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> > of 200 marks by Richard III.
> >
> > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> > 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> > duke of Bedford.
> >
> > end excerpt
> > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> > from the same odnb article as above.
> > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> > not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> > specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> > about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> > bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> > Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> > seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > end excerpt
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> > married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> > paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
> >
> > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> > will requests masses be said for her soul.
> > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> >
> > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> > Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> > 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> > Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> > Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> > study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> > ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> > eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> > usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> > de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> > trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> > parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> > chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> > notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> > Hanham, Richard III and his early
> > historians,
> > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> > history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> > King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> > edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> > 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> > St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> > Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> > Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> > (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> > J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> > English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> > Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> > Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> > The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> > parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> > Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> > Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> > (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> > The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> > chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> > and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> > 2.389-90 · DNB
> >
> > Archives:
> > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> > relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> > Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
> >
> >
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> > copyright
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> > delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> > kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> > delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> > kingdom vacation
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> > Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> > hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>>
>
> >
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>>
>
> > United kingdom vacation
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

william in french/latin is guillaume or something like that. walter is also gualterus or similiar...i'm being too lazy to look it up. stephen is etienne and on and on.

i think these sound-a-like names come from teasing/rhyming.
mary molly/polly.
btw..i'm the daughter of a bill and the mother of a bill...so, my son got silly willy billy. i wonder if dillon is an offshoot of william, if you know what i mean.

robert also goes to robin..so here comes robin a bob bobbin.
james in latin is also jacob.

i think also the names came from little kids. a girl i grew up with was named rosemary, but everyone called her roma, because that's what her little brother named her.

i've a bit of an idea where orangeville is. i think horseracing/standardbreds. near toronto. my maternal line is out of that area. lundy's lane is named for one of my great, great etc grandparents and family. they were part of the quaker movement who left the colonies because of the rev war and aftermath...of you didn't fight for our freedom mentality...some went east, my line came north.

i lived in the kingston/ottawa/north bay area for about 3 years back in the 70's. i wasn't in to doing family history then..boy, if i had known i would have been tearing up the archives and carousing the cemeteries. demanding trips to known family locations. i did have an interest in history, and did check out the kingston cemetery, and was really amazed at the age of burials and the family plots.

i'm bc born and raised, (3rd generation) our anglo-settlement history out here, for the most part is barely 125 years old...so seeing gravestones dated in the early 1700 etc was awesome..to me..my ex husband thought i was nuts.

the era i'm drawn too..is what i'm researching right now 15th to early 16thC, that and the 1100 - 1200's in france..

later
roslyn

William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I'm a bit of a name freak. Often wondered what dialectal anomaly came up
with the following:

William=Bill
Robert=Bob

I'll bet that there are a bunch more 'B' nicknames that have been lost
over the years. Of course there are tons of diminutives as well.

For some reason, where I grew up (Orangeville, Ontario. You'll know
where that is, rosylyn?), 'Jack' could be substituted for 'John'. Of
course, it's just as nuts that Jack (Jacques)=James. But then, at one
time, any stranger on the byways of France was called 'Jacques', or
'Jacques Bonhomme'.

How about Jennifer (Cornish?)=Guinevere (Welsh?). Hope I have it right.

Have a brand new grandson. His name is Gavin, and of course
'Gavin'='Gawain'. Haven't told my daughter that yet. Don't want to freak
her out too much. Since I'm a sucker for anything Arthurian, I'm very
pleased.



fayre rose wrote:

> giving a child the same name as sibling, does not necessarily mean one
> previously named had died. this is how we got the names
> ted/ned/ed..liz/betty/bess..jim/james..peg/meg/maggie/margaret.
> kay/kate/kathy.
>
> i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to find
> her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
> records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and
> friends..so the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that
> one to click in.
>
> patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
> stumper....go figure.
>
> molly and polly for mary.
>
> some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify which
> edward etc. in the family was being called.
>
> however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
> katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
> research/guestimations.
>
> roslyn
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> Might there have been two Katherines: one who was stillborn, or who
> died
> in infancy, and another who was born at a later date, and who was given
> name of the earlier child. Such practice was not unknown.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > katherine's marriage without licence is indicative that she would take
> > risks..go against authority.
> >
> > moreover, i'm left wondering why she did not flee with buckingham,
> > remaining to be captured with her young son. her name/woodville wasn't
> > a shield anymore. the most powerful of her clan were dead, fleeing or
> > in hiding. so..was she abandoned by buckingham, or did she simply tell
> > him where to get off.
> >
> > the return of her children and servants is not something the widow
> > of a traitor could easily expect. did she request this? was it a
> > reward for good behaviour? or a bargaining tool to be used to
> > influence her sister to come out of sanctuary?
> >
> > on the lighter side..did e. woodville decide to come out of
> > sanctuary at easter, giving up freedom for lent?..:-))
> >
> > a few months later katherine recieved a 200 mark annuity from ric
> > iii. was he simply kind hearted, or did she pressure the king for money?
> >
> > why do we believe ric iii despised all of his woodville relatives?
> > was k a manipulative woman, or a pawn of the powers that be?
> >
> > the return of her buckingham estates was done during h7, ergo it was
> > most likely to benefit jasper, not katherine.
> >
> > k's birthdate and place of birth is up for verification.
> > i've seen her birth being as early as 1442, but most often cited as
> > 1448 or 1458. the 1440s dates place her birth at grafton. the 1458
> > birth is supposed to have been at monmouthshire, wales.
> >
> > i have to ask, why were her parents in monmouthshire in 1458? in
> > 1464 were they not were in grafton? they had not risen to prominence
> > until then. the mother jacquetta was not english, tho well borne.
> >
> > i've not found the verification for the statement regarding k.
> > age 34 in 1492, listed in some later day saints/lds ancestral files.
> >
> > wedding date for henry and katherine is recorded as 1465, but also
> > 1472/3. and bef. 1477.
> >
> > henry's birthdate is recorded as sept 4, 1455 monmouthshire.
> >
> > katherine's date of death has assorted and unverified sources as
> > occurring bef 1513, 1525 and after 1525. the 1497 date is verifiable.
> >
> > again douglas provides us with excellent research
> >
> > Katherine Wydeville, sister of Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, married
> > (1st) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, (2nd) Jasper Tudor, Duke of
> > Bedford, and, (3rd) Richard Wingfield, K.G. Complete Peerage provides
> > a good account of her first two husbands in vol. 2 (1912), pp. 389-390
> > (sub Buckingham) and pg. 73 (sub Bedford).
> >
> > Curiously, in neither the Buckingham account or Bedford account in
> > Complete Peerage is a death date provided for Duchess Katherine. This
> > is quite odd given Katherine's high birth and prominent marriages. A
> > modern history of the Dukes of Stafford states only that Duchess
> > Katherine Wydeville died in 1497. Unfortunately it provides no source
> > for this death date [see the book, The Staffords, by Carole Rawcliffe,
> > published in 1978].
> >
> > Checking further, it appears that Duchess Katherine Wydeville died 18
> > May 1497, which date is indicated by the well researched and
> > documented book, Glamorgan County History, edited by T.B. Pugh, vol. 3
> > (1971), pg. 688 . In this case, the editor kindly cited the actual
> > source for Katherine Wydeville's death date, it being Worcester County
> > Record Office, Berrington MS. No. 558.
> >
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > E-mail: royalancestry@...
> >
> > why did her third husband, wingfield pay for masses to said for
> > katherine's soul? if she was a sweet, niave goodly woman..surely by
> > 1525, almost 30 years after her death..she would have been absolved
> > any minor wrong doings. what did wingfield know?
> >
> > he married again circa 1513, but still remembered her soul. did
> > katherine die in childbirth? did he love her, or did he carry some
> > guilt with regards to her death?
> >
> > wingfield had several children with his second wife. but none with
> > k. she died about a year after they were married.
> >
> > wingfield was b. circa 1469..recorded as age 56 in 1525. is this
> > where the rumour of the vast age difference between buckingham and k.
> > originated?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> > Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however.
> > Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a
> > contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both
> > Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders
> > in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not
> > have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A
> > contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George
> > Smith.)
> >
> > I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but
> > knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the
> > princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where
> > you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is
> > there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new
> > villain???
> >
> >
> > in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is
> > highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate
> > of the princes..
> >
> > what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
> > something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric
> > iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted
> > e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
> >
> > katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly
> > dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> > simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> > tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
> >
> > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483,
> > leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and
> > her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the
> > heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess
> > had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London.
> > Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity
> > of 200 marks by Richard III.
> >
> > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November
> > 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now
> > duke of Bedford.
> >
> > end excerpt
> > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also
> > from the same odnb article as above.
> > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her
> > not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly
> > specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500,
> > about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to
> > bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales.
> > Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine
> > seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > end excerpt
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> > married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> > paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
> >
> > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525
> > will requests masses be said for her soul.
> > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> >
> > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> > Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
> > 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of
> > Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south
> > Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a
> > study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> > ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
> > eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The
> > usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem
> > de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and
> > trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with
> > parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
> > chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical
> > notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> > Hanham, Richard III and his early
> > historians,
> > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
> > history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of
> > King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> > edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
> > 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of
> > St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D.
> > Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard,
> > Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
> > (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 ·
> > J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the
> > English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2,
> > Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B.
> > Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485',
> > The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and
> > parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> > Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> > Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> > (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> > The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's
> > chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France
> > and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn,
> > 2.389-90 · DNB
> >
> > Archives:
> > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material
> > relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS ·
> > Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
> >
> >
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> > copyright
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> > delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
> > kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> > delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> > kingdom vacation
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> > Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> > hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>>
>
> >
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>>
>
> > 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA
> <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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>>
>
> > United kingdom vacation
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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

---------------------------------
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.


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

i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to find
her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and friends..so
the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that one to click
in.

patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
stumper....go figure.

molly and polly for mary.

some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify which
edward etc. in the family was being called.

however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
research/guestimations.

roslyn
======================================
"M" and "P" have similar lip positions - there's a technical term for
this which I've forgotten completely (plosive?), but the two sounds can
be complemented amazingly easily.

Ancestral names can be very annoying: my grandmother had an older
sister, called Becky. My own sister's middle name is Rebecca, in Aunt
Becky's honor. When I first started researching my mother's family, I
scanned the NY death index for Becky or Rebecca Notis, without success.
Eventually, I discovered a Beatrice Notis, who turned out to be Becky.
However, when looking for mention of her arrival in the US with her
parents, it turned out that her name was originally Broche. So my
sister has the middle name Rebecca in honor of Aunt Broche. Which is
child's play to tracing Lazarus Maltinsky to Lloyd Mallan.

Maria
elena@...

you have my empathy, maria. my spouse is of ukranian descent..and some of his line has been really renamed in the anglosising of the surname, and forenames. luckily..or is that unluckily i'm now back to the ukraine with that line of research..and of course..that means learning the cyrilic alphabet, or finding some kind soul to assist. at least with french and latin one can reason out what has been written, if not by sight..then by sound/saying the word out loud..getting to the rootword..even anglo saxon is easier than slavic language.

i'm not relishing learning gaelic, welsh or celtic either, but it looks like i may have to glean a bit of an understanding of the written word for some of my research too.

i need several life times just to learn the linguistics of all the records i want to tap into.
roslyn


Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to find
her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and friends..so
the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that one to click
in.

patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
stumper....go figure.

molly and polly for mary.

some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify which
edward etc. in the family was being called.

however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
research/guestimations.

roslyn
======================================
"M" and "P" have similar lip positions - there's a technical term for
this which I've forgotten completely (plosive?), but the two sounds can
be complemented amazingly easily.

Ancestral names can be very annoying: my grandmother had an older
sister, called Becky. My own sister's middle name is Rebecca, in Aunt
Becky's honor. When I first started researching my mother's family, I
scanned the NY death index for Becky or Rebecca Notis, without success.
Eventually, I discovered a Beatrice Notis, who turned out to be Becky.
However, when looking for mention of her arrival in the US with her
parents, it turned out that her name was originally Broche. So my
sister has the middle name Rebecca in honor of Aunt Broche. Which is
child's play to tracing Lazarus Maltinsky to Lloyd Mallan.

Maria
elena@...






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

---------------------------------
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.


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

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>


> Ancestral names can be very annoying: my grandmother had an older
> sister, called Becky. My own sister's middle name is Rebecca, in Aunt
> Becky's honor. When I first started researching my mother's family, I
> scanned the NY death index for Becky or Rebecca Notis, without
success.
> Eventually, I discovered a Beatrice Notis, who turned out to be Becky.
> However, when looking for mention of her arrival in the US with her
> parents, it turned out that her name was originally Broche. So my
> sister has the middle name Rebecca in honor of Aunt Broche.


My mother's name, as I knew it all my life, was Adelene (emphaticaly
not Adeline), she signed her paintings D'Laine, her "real" name as
given by her parents was Audelaine, her childhood nickname was Bobbie,
which she hated, and she appears in the 1910 census as Ada and in
church records about that time as Addie.

I come from a Southern family and in the South they are big on
nicknames, which usually are not diminutives of the proper name and
have no relation to it. Besides her nickname of Bobbie, her sister
Viola Jean was called Polly, and a cousin named Orville as called
Mike. My brother Kenneth was called Bud and my cousin Dewey was called
Buster, both common nicknames for Juniors, but both Buster and Bud are
considered perfectly good actual birth certificate names in that
region. I had a cousin whose name, on his birth certificate, was Billy
Boy, and also a cousin Maidie as in girlie.

Further back in my family tree we have a man who really wanted his name
to be carried on, so he named all five of his sons Robert. No middle
name or differentiation. They all survived to marry and have children
and give geneologists fits

Katy

Then that bears out what I said because Elizabeth's coronation was in 1465 so Katherine could have been around 10 but certainly a minimum age of 7 (assuming Castelli is correct of course).
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Castelli only states that she was born "before 1458".
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment, however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century Manuscript by George Smith.)

I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however. Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.

Neil

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a new villain???


in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..

what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.

katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.

the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.

Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.

end excerpt
it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb article as above.
The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
end excerpt
jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.

jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
above info paraphrased from the odnb article.

these are sources for the odnb article.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB

Archives:
Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11


amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
copyright

Angela





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

---------------------------------
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.


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









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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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








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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to
find
> her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
> records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and
friends..so
> the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that one to
click
> in.
>
> patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
> stumper....go figure.
>
> molly and polly for mary.


>
> some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify
which
> edward etc. in the family was being called.
>
> however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
> katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
> research/guestimations.
>
> roslyn
> ======================================
> "M" and "P" have similar lip positions - there's a technical term
for
> this which I've forgotten completely (plosive?), but the two sounds
can
> be complemented amazingly easily.

If I remember my lnguistics, they're both labial (ie formed with the
lips) - p is a plosive or stop (ie the air is completely stopped and
then explodes out again) and m is a (nasal) fricative (ie the lips
aren't so closed an the sound vibrates between them).
The other labial is "B". The difference between B & P is that B is
voiced (ie uses the vocal chords) and P isn't.
I think a lot of pet names come from small children's attempts to say
the names. Very young kids find it difficult to use a lot of
different sounds in succession, so tend to "cheat" by repeating
sounds or syllables. I imagine that's partly how Bob came about.
Richard seems to have had a variety of pet starts other than D -
Hick, for instance. Young kids don't find Rs terribly easy, do they?

You can also see how the earliest pet form of Elizabeth was Bess or
Bessy, given how difficult little ones find the TH sound.

The L substitute for R in Molly & Polly is also interesting. Ls & Rs
are also very closely related. The technical term is 'liquids'. Both
produced by flicking the air flow around with the tongue. Chinese has
an L sound but not an R, and Japanese has an R sound but not an L
(though my son, who's learning Japanese, says it sounds more like an
L is some positions).

How John came to be Jack is the puzzler. As another lister said, the
French have it right in using it for James, as the Latin is Jacobus.
I did read somewhere about how our form James came about, but I don't
remember any more. Isn't the Italian Giaccomo? A switch from b to m
(two labials), followed by loss of the c would do it.

My mother's name is Pauline, and her nickname is Paud. The nickname came
about because her little brother couldn't say 'Pauline'. He could only
say 'Paudie'.

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > i have a gr gr...etc aunt born lousia..drove me nuts trying to
> find
> > her..and she was under my nose all along as lucy in marriage
> > records..but howabout she was known as lou-see to family and
> friends..so
> > the minister recorded her as lucy. took a while for that one to
> click
> > in.
> >
> > patsy is also a nickname for martha..that was another ancestral
> > stumper....go figure.
> >
> > molly and polly for mary.
>
>
> >
> > some were pet names, others were used to more easily identify
> which
> > edward etc. in the family was being called.
> >
> > however, with that being said...no..i don't think there were two
> > katherines in the family....i think there was sloppy
> > research/guestimations.
> >
> > roslyn
> > ======================================
> > "M" and "P" have similar lip positions - there's a technical term
> for
> > this which I've forgotten completely (plosive?), but the two sounds
> can
> > be complemented amazingly easily.
>
> If I remember my lnguistics, they're both labial (ie formed with the
> lips) - p is a plosive or stop (ie the air is completely stopped and
> then explodes out again) and m is a (nasal) fricative (ie the lips
> aren't so closed an the sound vibrates between them).
> The other labial is "B". The difference between B & P is that B is
> voiced (ie uses the vocal chords) and P isn't.
> I think a lot of pet names come from small children's attempts to say
> the names. Very young kids find it difficult to use a lot of
> different sounds in succession, so tend to "cheat" by repeating
> sounds or syllables. I imagine that's partly how Bob came about.
> Richard seems to have had a variety of pet starts other than D -
> Hick, for instance. Young kids don't find Rs terribly easy, do they?
>
> You can also see how the earliest pet form of Elizabeth was Bess or
> Bessy, given how difficult little ones find the TH sound.
>
> The L substitute for R in Molly & Polly is also interesting. Ls & Rs
> are also very closely related. The technical term is 'liquids'. Both
> produced by flicking the air flow around with the tongue. Chinese has
> an L sound but not an R, and Japanese has an R sound but not an L
> (though my son, who's learning Japanese, says it sounds more like an
> L is some positions).
>
> How John came to be Jack is the puzzler. As another lister said, the
> French have it right in using it for James, as the Latin is Jacobus.
> I did read somewhere about how our form James came about, but I don't
> remember any more. Isn't the Italian Giaccomo? A switch from b to m
> (two labials), followed by loss of the c would do it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> 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+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

This is what Tudor Place has to say about the Buckingham-Woodville
marriage.
It claims Henry was 12, his bride 24 at the time. As I mentioned
before the young Duke was unlikely to back out of a marriage to the
queen's sister, as incurring the King's displeasure would have
scuppered any chance of his obtaining the Lancastrian half of the
Bohun inheritance, as well as any other Royal favours, which were
still the main means of advancement in that society.
Unfortunately the link to Catherine on the Woodville page doesn't
help much.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/STAFFORD1.htm#Henry STAFFORD (2° D.
Buckingham)



--- In , "Neil"
<neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> Then that bears out what I said because Elizabeth's coronation was
in 1465 so Katherine could have been around 10 but certainly a
minimum age of 7 (assuming Castelli is correct of course).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Katherine Woodville...a
new villain???
>
>
> Castelli only states that she was born "before 1458".
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Neil
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Katherine
Woodville...a new villain???
>
>
> Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment,
however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry
Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's
coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on
people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so
Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar
manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV Century
Manuscript by George Smith.)
>
> I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved
directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the death
of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not sure
where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature, however.
Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Katherine
Woodville...a new villain???
>
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it
is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the
fate of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had
something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating
ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have
assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most
certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>
> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in
October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled,
the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to
London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was
eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper
Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is
also from the same odnb article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks,
allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was
some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was
clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate
administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at Thornbury,
Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third
duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of
south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard
III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P. W.
Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (1979-
83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad
Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat.
orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds.,
The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F.
Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96
(1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's 'English
history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history
of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas
More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete
works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and
I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P.
Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their
badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP ,
vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the
wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of
England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of Buckingham's
sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers,
Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
(1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England,
France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage
new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal
MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely
not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
flower delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
kingdom vacation
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> 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.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
flower delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
kingdom vacation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
flower delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
kingdom vacation
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>

TudorPlace is Castelli's site. So she was between 7 and 24, according
to him. Jorge was evidently as confused by the existing sources as we
we are. At least Neil has pinned her down to similar in age to Henry.
Incidentally, their grandson (Henry, Baron Stafford) had two sons
named Henry as the elder died in infancy. Of course, the Baron and
Ursula had about fourteen children, including the two next Barons
(Henry and Edward), Thomas, Richard and Dorothy.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> This is what Tudor Place has to say about the Buckingham-Woodville
> marriage.
> It claims Henry was 12, his bride 24 at the time. As I mentioned
> before the young Duke was unlikely to back out of a marriage to the
> queen's sister, as incurring the King's displeasure would have
> scuppered any chance of his obtaining the Lancastrian half of the
> Bohun inheritance, as well as any other Royal favours, which were
> still the main means of advancement in that society.
> Unfortunately the link to Catherine on the Woodville page doesn't
> help much.
>
> http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/STAFFORD1.htm#Henry STAFFORD (2° D.
> Buckingham)
>
>
>
> --- In , "Neil"
> <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> > Then that bears out what I said because Elizabeth's coronation
was
> in 1465 so Katherine could have been around 10 but certainly a
> minimum age of 7 (assuming Castelli is correct of course).
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen Lark
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Katherine
Woodville...a
> new villain???
> >
> >
> > Castelli only states that she was born "before 1458".
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Neil
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Katherine
> Woodville...a new villain???
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this - really useful information. One comment,
> however. Katherine was certainly not much older than Henry
> Stafford. In a contemporary account of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's
> coronation, both Henry and Katherine are cited as being carried on
> people's shoulders in the procession. Henry was 10 at the time so
> Katherine could not have been much older to be carried in a similar
> manner. (Source: A contemporary Account set forth from a XV
Century
> Manuscript by George Smith.)
> >
> > I tend to agree with you that Katherine was not involved
> directly but knew something of her husbands' involvement in the
death
> of the princes. (My money has always been on Buckingham.) Not
sure
> where you get the rebellious streak in Katherine's nature,
however.
> Is there any evidence for this? I'd be interested to know.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Katherine
> Woodville...a new villain???
> >
> >
> > in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that
it
> is highly unlikely k was not actively involved or complicit in the
> fate of the princes..
> >
> > what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham
had
> something to do with the fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating
> ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this info may have
> assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
> >
> > katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most
> certainly dead, she could have exposed the pretenders..warbeck and
> simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction by letting the
> tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
> >
> > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in
> October 1483, leaving her daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled,
> the duchess and her younger son Henry were taken and brought to
> London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
> December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
> servants from Wales to London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she
was
> eventually awarded an annuity of 200 marks by Richard III.
> >
> > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
> November 1485, to the new king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper
> Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
> >
> > end excerpt
> > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this
is
> also from the same odnb article as above.
> > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
> awarded her not merely her dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks,
> allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her total revenue was
> some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was
> clearly intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
> representative in Wales. Bedford kept her estates under separate
> administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at
Thornbury,
> Gloucestershire;
> > end excerpt
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine
had
> married richard wingfield without licence. one of buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
> >
> > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
> 1525 will requests masses be said for her soul.
> > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> >
> > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes
of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
> Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward Stafford, third
> duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships
of
> south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox,
Richard
> III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
> Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · R. Horrox and P.
W.
> Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols.
(1979-
> 83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad
> Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
> libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J. Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat.
> orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J. Cox,
eds.,
> The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F.
> Green, 'Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR ,
96
> (1981), 585-90 · A. Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore
Vergil's 'English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history
> of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol. 2 of The Yale
> edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas
> More, 'Historia Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete
> works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney, 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas
and
> I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · F. P.
> Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and
their
> badges (1925) · R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP ,
> vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the
> wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of
> England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
> Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A. F. Sutton, 'The duke of
Buckingham's
> sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92 · A. R. Myers,
> Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford],
> Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483, ed. C. Carpenter
> (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1:
> The university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
> Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong,
England,
> France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) · GEC, Peerage
> new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> >
> > Archives:
> > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
> material relating to territorial agreements with Richard III; legal
> MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/1, 5, 6.11
> >
> >
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
> was
> > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
> intrigued.
> > Please share your sources..To give references would surely
> not breach
> > copyright
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card
United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
United
> kingdom vacation
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

According to Charles Ross in Edward IV, Buckimgham felt "disparaged"
by his marriage. He gives his source as Mancini (75). If Mancini had
heard of it, it was quite probably fairly common knowledge. Ross does
not mention their ages on marriage, but I have read in more than one
book that she was 25 and he was 12. The first time I came across
this, I idly wondered what use a boy of 12 would be to a 25 year old
woman, even allowing for the fact that sex is sex. However, this is
the lady whose 20 something brother married a lady of over 60.

Whilst on the subject of checking, and this is not important at all,
how accurate is the information that Richard's horse was called White
Surrey? Are the names of any of the others known? This is just
curiosity on my part.

> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.

Two months later, or fourteen months later?

L.P.H.,

Ann

the odnb article states
the fine imposed on her for her unlicensed marriage became a charge on her eldest son, the third duke.

no date, no timeline, simply her son paid the fine.
roslyn

Ann Sharp <axsc@...> wrote:
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.

Two months later, or fourteen months later?

L.P.H.,

Ann







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

---------------------------------
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.


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

--- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...>
wrote:
>
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> > Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> > licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> > paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.
>
> Two months later, or fourteen months later?
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann

I see, you mean, was that 24 Feb 1496 old style or new style?

Worth checking.

given the article is in the odnb, and the calendar change over/dating system did not occur for few hundred years, i believe it would be very safe to assume the time difference is 2 months from the date of jasper's death to the marriage to wingfield.

i think the odnb would have stated 1497 if the marriage had taken place 14 months after jasper's death.

odnb is quite thorough at ensuring/verifying the sources, dates etc. used in their articles.

should we assume jasper died in 1494 not 1495 too?

roslyn


mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...>
wrote:
>
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> > Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> > licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> > paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.
>
> Two months later, or fourteen months later?
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann

I see, you mean, was that 24 Feb 1496 old style or new style?

Worth checking.






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

---------------------------------
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.


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

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> given the article is in the odnb, and the calendar change
over/dating system did not occur for few hundred years, i believe it
would be very safe to assume the time difference is 2 months from the
date of jasper's death to the marriage to wingfield.
>
> i think the odnb would have stated 1497 if the marriage had taken
place 14 months after jasper's death.
>
> odnb is quite thorough at ensuring/verifying the sources, dates
etc. used in their articles.
>
> should we assume jasper died in 1494 not 1495 too?
>
> roslyn

No. You're almost certainly right and that the new DNB would
have "corrected" the dates, but Jasper died in December. The question
is to do with events occurring between January 1st and March 25th.
For anyone unfamiliar, the English system until the early 1700s was
to start the new year on March 25th, the feast of the Annunciation
and therefore the date of Jesus' conception.
Sometimes historians use the formula, 2nd January 1484/5. Other
times they just alter to modern usage. Occasionally the date we're
getting is uncorrected old style. and certainly if you're reading
original documents old style is what you will get - eg Richard's
parliament would be referred to in a contemporary document as January
1483.

Marie


>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , "Ann Sharp"
<axsc@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> > > Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> > > licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> > > paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.
> >
> > Two months later, or fourteen months later?
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
>
> I see, you mean, was that 24 Feb 1496 old style or new style?
>
> Worth checking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United
kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quite. When I first discovered Arthur Capell, Baron Hadham, Castelli
said that he was beheaded on 9 March 1649 and Tompsett gave the same
date in 1648.
He was not arrested/ captured until summer 1648.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > given the article is in the odnb, and the calendar change
> over/dating system did not occur for few hundred years, i believe
it
> would be very safe to assume the time difference is 2 months from
the
> date of jasper's death to the marriage to wingfield.
> >
> > i think the odnb would have stated 1497 if the marriage had
taken
> place 14 months after jasper's death.
> >
> > odnb is quite thorough at ensuring/verifying the sources, dates
> etc. used in their articles.
> >
> > should we assume jasper died in 1494 not 1495 too?
> >
> > roslyn
>
> No. You're almost certainly right and that the new DNB would
> have "corrected" the dates, but Jasper died in December. The
question
> is to do with events occurring between January 1st and March 25th.
> For anyone unfamiliar, the English system until the early 1700s was
> to start the new year on March 25th, the feast of the Annunciation
> and therefore the date of Jesus' conception.
> Sometimes historians use the formula, 2nd January 1484/5. Other
> times they just alter to modern usage. Occasionally the date we're
> getting is uncorrected old style. and certainly if you're reading
> original documents old style is what you will get - eg Richard's
> parliament would be referred to in a contemporary document as
January
> 1483.
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@> wrote:
> > --- In , "Ann Sharp"
> <axsc@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496
> > > > Katherine had married Richard Wingfield without
> > > > licence. one of Buckingham's sons
> > > > paid the fine for the Wingfield marriage.
> > >
> > > Two months later, or fourteen months later?
> > >
> > > L.P.H.,
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > I see, you mean, was that 24 Feb 1496 old style or new style?
> >
> > Worth checking.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card
United
> kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
turfrey@...> wrote:
>
> According to Charles Ross in Edward IV, Buckimgham felt "disparaged"
> by his marriage. He gives his source as Mancini (75). If Mancini
had
> heard of it, it was quite probably fairly common knowledge. Ross does
> not mention their ages on marriage, but I have read in more than one
> book that she was 25 and he was 12. The first time I came across
> this, I idly wondered what use a boy of 12 would be to a 25 year old
> woman, even allowing for the fact that sex is sex. However, this is
> the lady whose 20 something brother married a lady of over 60.

Catherine Neville may have been about 64 when she married the 21 year
old John Neville, but as the dowager Duchess of Norfolk she did have
absolutely HUGE tracts of land. The Woodville sisters had no landed
estates whatever, nor much prospect of becoming heiresses. A bride's
estates were her most attractive assets; if a nobleman wanted physical
charms he'd take mistresses.

Sorry, the lad was John WOODVILLE. He didn't long enjoy the charms of
his mature bride, as he was beheaded 5 years later by his wife's
nephew the Earl of Warwick.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
<sally-
> turfrey@> wrote:
> >
> > According to Charles Ross in Edward IV, Buckimgham
felt "disparaged"
> > by his marriage. He gives his source as Mancini (75). If
Mancini
> had
> > heard of it, it was quite probably fairly common knowledge. Ross
does
> > not mention their ages on marriage, but I have read in more than
one
> > book that she was 25 and he was 12. The first time I came across
> > this, I idly wondered what use a boy of 12 would be to a 25 year
old
> > woman, even allowing for the fact that sex is sex. However, this
is
> > the lady whose 20 something brother married a lady of over 60.
>
> Catherine Neville may have been about 64 when she married the 21
year
> old John Neville, but as the dowager Duchess of Norfolk she did
have
> absolutely HUGE tracts of land. The Woodville sisters had no
landed
> estates whatever, nor much prospect of becoming heiresses. A
bride's
> estates were her most attractive assets; if a nobleman wanted
physical
> charms he'd take mistresses.
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>

>
> Catherine Neville may have been about 64 when she married the 21 year
> old John Neville, but as the dowager Duchess of Norfolk she did have
> absolutely HUGE tracts of land. The Woodville sisters had no landed
> estates whatever, nor much prospect of becoming heiresses. A bride's
> estates were her most attractive assets; if a nobleman wanted
physical
> charms he'd take mistresses.


And, as I recall, the final irony is that the lady outlived her much
younger husband.

Katy

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
<sally-
> turfrey@> wrote:
> >
> > According to Charles Ross in Edward IV, Buckimgham
felt "disparaged"
> > by his marriage. He gives his source as Mancini (75). If
Mancini
> had
> > heard of it, it was quite probably fairly common knowledge. Ross
does
> > not mention their ages on marriage, but I have read in more than
one
> > book that she was 25 and he was 12. The first time I came across
> > this, I idly wondered what use a boy of 12 would be to a 25 year
old
> > woman, even allowing for the fact that sex is sex.



As you mentioned, sex is sex and it seems some 12-year-old boys are
not only capable of it, but are able to father a child. Henry of
Bolingbroke was 12 when he was married to 11-year-old Mary de Bohun.
She was a great heiress, thus quite a prize, and so that there
wouldn't be any chance of having the marriage annulled, the two
children were bedded together so the marriage would be consummated.
(Consummation could consist of no more than that -- being in bed
together, with say bare legs touching, as was apparently the case
with Catherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur, by her later testimony.)
However, Mary became pregnant and gave birth to a short-lived infant
the next year. After that the couple was separated for a few years.
Mary's fertility was the death of her, literally. She died at 27, in
childbirth with her eighth child, Philippa.

Bolingbroke may have peaked early -- his second wife, Joan of
Navarre, had had eight children by her first husband, but she and
Bokingbroke had none together.

(By the way, Joan is yet another queen who was accused of using
witchcraft on her husband and trying to poison him, and was
imprisoned in Pevensey Castle for four years on those charges.)

Katy

>From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>

... (Consummation could consist of no more than that -- being in bed
>together, with say bare legs touching, as was apparently the case
>with Catherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur, by her later testimony.)...

>Katy
===========================

This made me think of a funny little passage from Townsend Miller's "Castles and the Crown" (page 167), referrring to the double-marriage plans of Juan and Juana, children of the Catholic Kings to Margaret of Austria and Philip the Handsome, children of the Emperor Max:

"Early in 1496 Juana's proxy-wedding itself took place, in Valladolid, with the Bastard of Burgundy standing for Philip. Juan's had already been solemnized in the preceding November at Malines--an occasion on which Rojas, who served now as proxy, gave rise to one of the international laughs of the day: protocol required him to bare only a discreet patch of leg as he lay down beside Margaret on the symbolic bed, but he apparently undid the wrong buttons and very nearly exposed everything."

Incidentally, Catherine of Aragon was clear on stating that her marriage to prince Arthur had not, in fact, been consummated, throwing the matter before Henry VIII and in front of witnesses at Blackfriars.

Recently I finished "The Constant Princess", by Philippa George, which concentrates on Catherine's marriage to Arthur (she takes the Starkey line, with which I disagree). Arthur's characterization is quite nice and believable, and the heart of the story, between Catherine (or Catalina, as George calls her through most of the novel), is well done. Structure feels flawed to me, though, and much of the dialogue is repetitive and a little irksome. The ending is rushed; and I'm personally miffed that George didn't include the impromptu visit to England by Philip and Juana after their shipwreck, on their way to Spain. Missed a dramatic opportunity, as well as a major development or degeneration for Henry VII.

Maria
elena@...

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:


By the way, I have no idea why my user address there comes
up "oregonkatyno reply@..." If you click on "send email" on one of my
posts, it will reach me.

Katy

On this subject I remember reading an article in one of the broadsheet newspapers a few months ago reporting a piece of medical research which had found that a sizeable proportion of 12-year-old boys produce sperm and therefore those facing cancer treatment should be given sperm freezing facilities in the same way as adults.

In my parallel life as an Army Cadet Force instructor I notice, however, that 12-14 year old boys can vary quite widely in their physical development. I have two 12-year-olds who have joined in the last few weeks in the week of their twelfth birthdays (minimum age is 12). Both are under 5ft tall and very much 'children' in appearance. Another only a few months older is 5ft 6 and his voice has very obviously broken. Then there is a 14-year-old who is 6ft tall, needs to shve a good deal more oten than he actually does, and has the angular cast of feature of an adult. Yet another boy, also 14, is only about 5ft 6 but has Size 12 feet!

Ann

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
As you mentioned, sex is sex and it seems some 12-year-old boys are
not only capable of it, but are able to father a child. Henry of
Bolingbroke was 12 when he was married to 11-year-old Mary de Bohun.
She was a great heiress, thus quite a prize, and so that there
wouldn't be any chance of having the marriage annulled, the two
children were bedded together so the marriage would be consummated.
(Consummation could consist of no more than that -- being in bed
together, with say bare legs touching, as was apparently the case
with Catherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur, by her later testimony.)
However, Mary became pregnant and gave birth to a short-lived infant
the next year. After that the couple was separated for a few years.
Mary's fertility was the death of her, literally. She died at 27, in
childbirth with her eighth child, Philippa.

Bolingbroke may have peaked early -- his second wife, Joan of
Navarre, had had eight children by her first husband, but she and
Bokingbroke had none together.

(By the way, Joan is yet another queen who was accused of using
witchcraft on her husband and trying to poison him, and was
imprisoned in Pevensey Castle for four years on those charges.)

Katy





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.


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

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> On this subject I remember reading an article in one of the
broadsheet newspapers a few months ago reporting a piece of medical
research which had found that a sizeable proportion of 12-year-old
boys produce sperm and therefore those facing cancer treatment should
be given sperm freezing facilities in the same way as adults.
>
> In my parallel life as an Army Cadet Force instructor I notice,
however, that 12-14 year old boys can vary quite widely in their
physical development. I have two 12-year-olds who have joined in the
last few weeks in the week of their twelfth birthdays (minimum age is
12). Both are under 5ft tall and very much 'children' in appearance.
Another only a few months older is 5ft 6 and his voice has very
obviously broken. Then there is a 14-year-old who is 6ft tall, needs
to shve a good deal more oten than he actually does, and has the
angular cast of feature of an adult. Yet another boy, also 14, is
only about 5ft 6 but has Size 12 feet!
>
> Ann

Yep, the feet often have the growth spurt first, which can be
unfortunate. A neighbour's daughter had UK size 9 feet at the age of
10, and was wearing men's shoes to school.
My son had a friend who was 5ft 8in at age ten. The idiot doctors he
saw decided if he kept growing like that till the normal age (which
he probably woudn't have done as he was already starting a bit of
face fuzz) he would be 7ft, so gave him hormones to bring on puberty
early (they had apparently not noticed this was already happening).
Consequently he only ever grew about another half inch.
My son, dwarfed by his friend at the age on ten, was 14/15 when he
made his spurt. I think he was growing an inch a month for a while.
He is now 6ft 4 in.

Marie

I was 6'1" when I was thirteen.

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On this subject I remember reading an article in one of the
> broadsheet newspapers a few months ago reporting a piece of medical
> research which had found that a sizeable proportion of 12-year-old
> boys produce sperm and therefore those facing cancer treatment should
> be given sperm freezing facilities in the same way as adults.
> >
> > In my parallel life as an Army Cadet Force instructor I notice,
> however, that 12-14 year old boys can vary quite widely in their
> physical development. I have two 12-year-olds who have joined in the
> last few weeks in the week of their twelfth birthdays (minimum age is
> 12). Both are under 5ft tall and very much 'children' in appearance.
> Another only a few months older is 5ft 6 and his voice has very
> obviously broken. Then there is a 14-year-old who is 6ft tall, needs
> to shve a good deal more oten than he actually does, and has the
> angular cast of feature of an adult. Yet another boy, also 14, is
> only about 5ft 6 but has Size 12 feet!
> >
> > Ann
>
> Yep, the feet often have the growth spurt first, which can be
> unfortunate. A neighbour's daughter had UK size 9 feet at the age of
> 10, and was wearing men's shoes to school.
> My son had a friend who was 5ft 8in at age ten. The idiot doctors he
> saw decided if he kept growing like that till the normal age (which
> he probably woudn't have done as he was already starting a bit of
> face fuzz) he would be 7ft, so gave him hormones to bring on puberty
> early (they had apparently not noticed this was already happening).
> Consequently he only ever grew about another half inch.
> My son, dwarfed by his friend at the age on ten, was 14/15 when he
> made his spurt. I think he was growing an inch a month for a while.
> He is now 6ft 4 in.
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

My brother, now 5ft 11, was noticeably small until he was 15-16. A photograph taken on Remembrance Sunday 1977, when he was 15 and 2 months, shows him still a good bit shorter than our 5ft 6 father.

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

My son had a friend who was 5ft 8in at age ten. The idiot doctors he
saw decided if he kept growing like that till the normal age (which
he probably woudn't have done as he was already starting a bit of
face fuzz) he would be 7ft, so gave him hormones to bring on puberty
early (they had apparently not noticed this was already happening).
Consequently he only ever grew about another half inch.
My son, dwarfed by his friend at the age on ten, was 14/15 when he
made his spurt. I think he was growing an inch a month for a while.
He is now 6ft 4 in.

Marie









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.


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

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not
actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the
fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this
info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have
exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction
by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>

This theory that Buckingham (with or without Katherines knowledge) had the princes done
in - I cant really see it myself - unless I am missing something.
1. Why would Bucks have had them done away with PRIOR to having suceeded in having
Richard removed from the throne. They were bastards. Titulus Regius said so. If it was to
label Richard as a child killer etc., and himself a hero that could have been easy to
accomplish once his rebellion had suceeded. After all he would have been aware of where
the bodies were concealed.

2. More importantly, when Richard had discovered what had gone on, why was it not
made public knowledge - I would have thought he would have considered it neccessary to
have the truth let out if only to absolve himself from any guilt. Why was a thorough
investigation not made and anyone involved in the murder brought to trial, including
Katherine if she had played a role in the murders?

3. It suggested that this information may have helped La Woodville with her decision to
leave santuary - I would have thought if she had knowledge of Bucks guilt then so would
many others, including Elizabeth of York. It then follows that Henry the Weasle would
have been informed - yet it would appear to all intents and purposes that Henry was in the
dark as to the fate/whereabouts of the boys himself.

4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead, done in by Bucks, why did
she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that cost her everything.

Strange, very strange.

Eileen


> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her
daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were
taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to
London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200
marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new
king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb
article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her
dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her
total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly
intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford
kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at
Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield
without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be
said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521,
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward
Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of
south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of
service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4
vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum
Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J.
Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green,
`Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol.
2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, `Historia
Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney,
15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) ·
F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) ·
R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and
papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of
England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A.
F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92
· A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483,
ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The
university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
(1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) ·
GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial
agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/
1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

comments interspersed..see below

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> in an off list correspondence, it has been discussed that it is highly unlikely k was not
actively involved or complicit in the fate of the princes..
>
> what still remains a possibility is she knew buckingham had something to do with the
fate of the princes, thereby, exonerating ric iii of any willful wrongdoing to the boys. this
info may have assisted e. woodville with her decision to leave sanctuary.
>
> katherine died in 1497. if she knew the boys were most certainly dead, she could have
exposed the pretenders..warbeck and simnel...unless she got some perverse satisfaction
by letting the tudors sweat it out. katherine did have a rebellious streak.
>

This theory that Buckingham (with or without Katherines knowledge) had the princes done
in - I cant really see it myself - unless I am missing something.
1. Why would Bucks have had them done away with PRIOR to having suceeded in having
Richard removed from the throne. They were bastards. Titulus Regius said so. If it was to
label Richard as a child killer etc., and himself a hero that could have been easy to
accomplish once his rebellion had suceeded. After all he would have been aware of where
the bodies were concealed.
---------------
the boys were killed because they'd be an impediment to anyone's succession or ability to hold the throne.
a king undid titilus regis.

i believe titilus regis was meant to block the boys from inheriting the throne, but it also served as their death warrant. they went from royal heirs to simply high born bastards.

not too big of a crime to off an illegit. major probs when you kill the heir to the throne.


2. More importantly, when Richard had discovered what had gone on, why was it not
made public knowledge - I would have thought he would have considered it neccessary to
have the truth let out if only to absolve himself from any guilt. Why was a thorough
investigation not made and anyone involved in the murder brought to trial, including
Katherine if she had played a role in the murders?

i'm still researching this, but the main players in the murder were dead, and/or attainted after bucks rebellion.

richard couldn't go totally public with the murder because he was implicated by allowing buckingham access to the boys in the first place. he had a double edged sword to play with. if he admitted he knew the boys were dead then..how does he prove he didn't order the deaths?

it was only a small group of people who did in the boys. they didn't have email/faxes/tv etc to transmit the crime. merely word of mouth or written documents.

remember the tudor papershredders got rid of most of documents for this turbulent time. occassionally one turns up to clarify a little bit more as to what did happen.

3. It suggested that this information may have helped La Woodville with her decision to
leave santuary - I would have thought if she had knowledge of Bucks guilt then so would
many others, including Elizabeth of York. It then follows that Henry the Weasle would
have been informed - yet it would appear to all intents and purposes that Henry was in the
dark as to the fate/whereabouts of the boys himself.

again you/we are dealing with hearsay..imagine..it is said buckingham offed the boys, but no bodies were produced. how many people nowadays hold out hope that "missing child, presumed dead will return".

i also believe james tyrrell was tortured in 1502 to ensure/reveal the fate of the princes. prince arthur had just died. h7 needed to know that they were dead. tyrrell confessed he had been a part of the disappearence, but he himself could not provide where the bodies were located. so h7 pinned the entire death on tyrrell and by that association on ric iii.

i find it interesting the confession does not exist/survive..why? would it not have been in h7's favour to have tyrrells confession freely distributed throughout the realm, if the murder/disappearance could solidly be pinned on ric iii...and again, if people believe bucks was the front man for h7 to conquer the throne..then the death of the lads could reflect badly upon his reign and heirs.

4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead, done in by Bucks, why did
she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that cost her everything.

perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long as it wasn't h7. and again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.

Strange, very strange.
if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have been solved eons ago.
r.


Eileen


> the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her
daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were
taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales to
London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200
marks by Richard III.
>
> Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new
king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
>
> end excerpt
> it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb
article as above.
> The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her
dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will. Her
total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was clearly
intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford
kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly at
Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> end excerpt
> jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard wingfield
without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
>
> jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be
said for her soul.
> above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
>
> these are sources for the odnb article.
> C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521,
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris, Edward
Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of
south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of
service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4
vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum
Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A. J.
Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green,
`Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963), vol.
2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More, `Historia
Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D. Kinney,
15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) ·
F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) ·
R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and
papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of
England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and A.
F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87-92
· A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483,
ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The
university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
(1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century (1983) ·
GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
>
> Archives:
> Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial
agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/1/
1, 5, 6.11
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> copyright
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







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.


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

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>>
> 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead, done in by Bucks, why
did
> she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that cost her everything.
> Eileen
> perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long as it wasn't h7. and
again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
>
Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also meant her daughter losing
her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was Queen of England I
think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her put all that at risk.
Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you accept that, all of
Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at Richards court, her letter to
Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.

> Strange, very strange.
> if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have been solved eons ago.
> r.

There is no proof that a murder ever took place.
>
>
> Eileen
>
>
> > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her
> daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were
> taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
> December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales
to
> London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200
> marks by Richard III.
> >
> > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new
> king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
> >
> > end excerpt
> > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb
> article as above.
> > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her
> dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will.
Her
> total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was
clearly
> intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford
> kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly
at
> Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > end excerpt
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard
wingfield
> without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
> >
> > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be
> said for her soul.
> > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> >
> > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris,
Edward
> Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of
> south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of
> service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum
> Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
J.
> Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green,
> `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963),
vol.
> 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
`Historia
> Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D.
Kinney,
> 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938)
·
> F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
(1925) ·
> R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king
of
> England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
A.
> F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
-92
> · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological
> Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The
> university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century
(1983) ·
> GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> >
> > Archives:
> > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial
> agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
1/
> 1, 5, 6.11
> >
> >
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> > copyright
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united
kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

comments interspersed see below.

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>>
> 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead, done in by Bucks, why
did
> she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that cost her everything.
> Eileen
> perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long as it wasn't h7. and
again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
>
Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also meant her daughter losing
her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was Queen of England I
think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her put all that at risk.
Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you accept that, all of
Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at Richards court, her letter to
Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.
if..big if..if woodville did believe at least one of her sons did survive..she had nothing to lose. her daughter was queen..but her son would be king..significantly more powerful than a queen consort.



> Strange, very strange.
> if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have been solved eons ago.
> r.

There is no proof that a murder ever took place.

there were reports of the princes being dead as early as sept 15, 1483. see
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/richard.html

then are more recently discovered records.
richard firth discovered a manuscript...
Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488
for 1483 it states...
this yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd
Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the duke of Buckingham.

there is no proof..no bodies..but there were lots of rumours. scholars are debating "be the vise" as does it mean..by the advise of buckingham or by the devise of buckingham.

i choose the latter. this is why richard and buckingham quarrelled and parted ways on july 30th.

buckingham was a self serving two faced weasel. e4 knew it..and richard found out later. i think if ric had been closer to london, and his brother.

he would have never let buckingham near the boys..or himself for that matter.

what i'd like to currently determine..is where was morton from the time of his june arrest until brecon.

did he travel with buckingham to there..or was he sent there. essentially when did morton arrive in wales, and how did he get there?


roslyn

>
>
> Eileen
>
>
> > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October 1483, leaving her
> daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her younger son Henry were
> taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been consigned to safe keeping. In
> December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and servants from Wales
to
> London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually awarded an annuity of 200
> marks by Richard III.
> >
> > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7 November 1485, to the new
> king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of Bedford.
> >
> > end excerpt
> > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is also from the same odnb
> article as above.
> > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder awarded her not merely her
> dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified under Buckingham's will.
Her
> total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate; the marriage was
clearly
> intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's representative in Wales. Bedford
> kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems to have resided mostly
at
> Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > end excerpt
> > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had married richard
wingfield
> without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the wingfield marriage.
> >
> > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's 1525 will requests masses be
> said for her soul.
> > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> >
> > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11 (1978) · B. J. Harris,
Edward
> Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The marcher lordships of
> south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of
> service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum
> Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
J.
> Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng. trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · R. F. Green,
> `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96 (1981), 585-90 · A.
> Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed. R. S. Sylvester (1963),
vol.
> 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More · St Thomas More,
`Historia
> Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, ed. D.
Kinney,
> 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938)
·
> F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges
(1925) ·
> R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king
of
> England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
A.
> F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
-92
> · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth century England, ed.
> > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1, Yorkshire Archaeological
> Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the University of Cambridge, 1: The
> university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) · Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century
(1983) ·
> GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> >
> > Archives:
> > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic material relating to territorial
> agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
1/
> 1, 5, 6.11
> >
> >
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville was
> > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also intrigued.
> > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not breach
> > copyright
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united
kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







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.


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

why is is that we are willing to believe everything evil when it
comes to the character of Buckingham......or Morton.......but
protest so loudly if anyone says the same of Richard??????

Personally, I believe that Morton is the key to everything...but
cannot explain why...just a gut feeling...love to hear other peoples
opinions on this

Angela




--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed see below.
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose <fayreroze@>
wrote:
> >
> >>
> > 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead,
done in by Bucks, why
> did
> > she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that
cost her everything.
> > Eileen
> > perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long
as it wasn't h7. and
> again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
> >
> Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also
meant her daughter losing
> her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was
Queen of England I
> think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her
put all that at risk.
> Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you
accept that, all of
> Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at
Richards court, her letter to
> Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.
> if..big if..if woodville did believe at least one of her sons
did survive..she had nothing to lose. her daughter was queen..but
her son would be king..significantly more powerful than a queen
consort.
>
>
>
> > Strange, very strange.
> > if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have
been solved eons ago.
> > r.
>
> There is no proof that a murder ever took place.
>
> there were reports of the princes being dead as early as sept
15, 1483. see
> http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/richard.html
>
> then are more recently discovered records.
> richard firth discovered a manuscript...
> Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488
> for 1483 it states...
> this yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd
> Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng
Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be
the vise of the duke of Buckingham.
>
> there is no proof..no bodies..but there were lots of rumours.
scholars are debating "be the vise" as does it mean..by the advise
of buckingham or by the devise of buckingham.
>
> i choose the latter. this is why richard and buckingham
quarrelled and parted ways on july 30th.
>
> buckingham was a self serving two faced weasel. e4 knew it..and
richard found out later. i think if ric had been closer to london,
and his brother.
>
> he would have never let buckingham near the boys..or himself for
that matter.
>
> what i'd like to currently determine..is where was morton from
the time of his june arrest until brecon.
>
> did he travel with buckingham to there..or was he sent there.
essentially when did morton arrive in wales, and how did he get
there?
>
>
> roslyn
>
> >
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October
1483, leaving her
> > daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her
younger son Henry were
> > taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been
consigned to safe keeping. In
> > December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
servants from Wales
> to
> > London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually
awarded an annuity of 200
> > marks by Richard III.
> > >
> > > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
November 1485, to the new
> > king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of
Bedford.
> > >
> > > end excerpt
> > > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is
also from the same odnb
> > article as above.
> > > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
awarded her not merely her
> > dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified
under Buckingham's will.
> Her
> > total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate;
the marriage was
> clearly
> > intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
representative in Wales. Bedford
> > kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems
to have resided mostly
> at
> > Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > > end excerpt
> > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
married richard
> wingfield
> > without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the
wingfield marriage.
> > >
> > > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
1525 will requests masses be
> > said for her soul.
> > > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> > >
> > > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> > Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11
(1978) · B. J. Harris,
> Edward
> > Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The
marcher lordships of
> > south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox,
Richard III, a study of
> > service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> > records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library
Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> > vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus
Mancinus ad Angelum
> > Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
> J.
> > Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng.
trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> > Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486
(1986) · R. F. Green,
> > `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96
(1981), 585-90 · A.
> > Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English
history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> > 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed.
R. S. Sylvester (1963),
> vol.
> > 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More ·
St Thomas More,
> `Historia
> > Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St
Thomas More, ed. D.
> Kinney,
> > 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great
chronicle of London (1938)
> ·
> > F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the
leaders and their badges
> (1925) ·
> > R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J.
Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> > papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during
the reign of Henry VI, king
> of
> > England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
> A.
> > F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The
Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
> -92
> > · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth
century England, ed.
> > > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
Yorkshire Archaeological
> > Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor
letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> > ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the
University of Cambridge, 1: The
> > university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> > (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the
fifteenth century
> (1983) ·
> > GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> > >
> > > Archives:
> > > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
material relating to territorial
> > agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family
estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
> 1/
> > 1, 5, 6.11
> > >
> > >
> > > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
was
> > > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
intrigued.
> > > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not
breach
> > > copyright
> > >
> > > Angela
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united
> kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
kingdom vacation
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

morton is definitely a key figure to unravelling this mystery.
richard accused him of sorcery.
his church connections could mean he knew "something" more than history allows us to know. the borgia pope made him a cardinal in 1493.

genealogically, he doesn't appear to have much of an ancestry. ergo..the guy had slick ambition.

i think ricardians go to defense of richard, because his reputation was sooooo blackened by morton, moore and the tudors. i don't think richard was a saint, but i don't think he was evil incarnate either.

for me one the most telling stories about richard is when he named his nephew edward his heir because his queen, anne was ailing and wanted it so. richard pleased anne by doing so. when anne died he named another heir.

a callous and ambitious man would have ignored the woman's request..doing what was best for the country.. he really had nothing to lose or gain...it was merely a matter of time. anne's remaining days were spent knowing her sister's son was heir to the throne. i think that was an awesome gift to the woman.

to me this is indicative that richard was a compassionate and caring man.

the lopping off of heads..well, for the part that was just medieval politics. to bad morton hadn't made it to the chopping block..or the more traditional treatment for lower ranking treasonist dogs..hung, drawn and quartered.

roslyn

amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:





why is is that we are willing to believe everything evil when it
comes to the character of Buckingham......or Morton.......but
protest so loudly if anyone says the same of Richard??????

Personally, I believe that Morton is the key to everything...but
cannot explain why...just a gut feeling...love to hear other peoples
opinions on this

Angela




--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed see below.
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose <fayreroze@>
wrote:
> >
> >>
> > 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead,
done in by Bucks, why
> did
> > she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that
cost her everything.
> > Eileen
> > perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long
as it wasn't h7. and
> again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
> >
> Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also
meant her daughter losing
> her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was
Queen of England I
> think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her
put all that at risk.
> Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you
accept that, all of
> Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at
Richards court, her letter to
> Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.
> if..big if..if woodville did believe at least one of her sons
did survive..she had nothing to lose. her daughter was queen..but
her son would be king..significantly more powerful than a queen
consort.
>
>
>
> > Strange, very strange.
> > if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have
been solved eons ago.
> > r.
>
> There is no proof that a murder ever took place.
>
> there were reports of the princes being dead as early as sept
15, 1483. see
> http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/richard.html
>
> then are more recently discovered records.
> richard firth discovered a manuscript...
> Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488
> for 1483 it states...
> this yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd
> Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng
Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be
the vise of the duke of Buckingham.
>
> there is no proof..no bodies..but there were lots of rumours.
scholars are debating "be the vise" as does it mean..by the advise
of buckingham or by the devise of buckingham.
>
> i choose the latter. this is why richard and buckingham
quarrelled and parted ways on july 30th.
>
> buckingham was a self serving two faced weasel. e4 knew it..and
richard found out later. i think if ric had been closer to london,
and his brother.
>
> he would have never let buckingham near the boys..or himself for
that matter.
>
> what i'd like to currently determine..is where was morton from
the time of his june arrest until brecon.
>
> did he travel with buckingham to there..or was he sent there.
essentially when did morton arrive in wales, and how did he get
there?
>
>
> roslyn
>
> >
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October
1483, leaving her
> > daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her
younger son Henry were
> > taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been
consigned to safe keeping. In
> > December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
servants from Wales
> to
> > London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually
awarded an annuity of 200
> > marks by Richard III.
> > >
> > > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
November 1485, to the new
> > king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of
Bedford.
> > >
> > > end excerpt
> > > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is
also from the same odnb
> > article as above.
> > > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
awarded her not merely her
> > dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified
under Buckingham's will.
> Her
> > total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate;
the marriage was
> clearly
> > intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
representative in Wales. Bedford
> > kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems
to have resided mostly
> at
> > Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > > end excerpt
> > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
married richard
> wingfield
> > without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the
wingfield marriage.
> > >
> > > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
1525 will requests masses be
> > said for her soul.
> > > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> > >
> > > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> > Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11
(1978) · B. J. Harris,
> Edward
> > Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The
marcher lordships of
> > south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox,
Richard III, a study of
> > service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> > records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library
Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> > vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus
Mancinus ad Angelum
> > Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
> J.
> > Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng.
trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> > Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486
(1986) · R. F. Green,
> > `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96
(1981), 585-90 · A.
> > Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English
history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> > 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed.
R. S. Sylvester (1963),
> vol.
> > 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More ·
St Thomas More,
> `Historia
> > Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St
Thomas More, ed. D.
> Kinney,
> > 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great
chronicle of London (1938)
> ·
> > F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the
leaders and their badges
> (1925) ·
> > R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J.
Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> > papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during
the reign of Henry VI, king
> of
> > England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
> A.
> > F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The
Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
> -92
> > · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth
century England, ed.
> > > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
Yorkshire Archaeological
> > Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor
letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> > ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the
University of Cambridge, 1: The
> > university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> > (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the
fifteenth century
> (1983) ·
> > GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> > >
> > > Archives:
> > > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
material relating to territorial
> > agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family
estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
> 1/
> > 1, 5, 6.11
> > >
> > >
> > > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
was
> > > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
intrigued.
> > > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not
breach
> > > copyright
> > >
> > > Angela
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united
> kingdom
> > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
kingdom vacation
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






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.


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

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> >
> for me one the most telling stories about richard is when he named his nephew edward
his heir because his queen, anne was ailing and wanted it so. richard pleased anne by
doing so. when anne died he named another heir.
>
> a callous and ambitious man would have ignored the woman's request..doing what was
best for the country.. he really had nothing to lose or gain...it was merely a matter of
time. anne's remaining days were spent knowing her sister's son was heir to the throne. i
think that was an awesome gift to the woman.
>
> to me this is indicative that richard was a compassionate and caring man.

I totally agree with you on this one Roslyn - I have thought this for a long time. Richard
must have known Edward (it was said he could not discern a goose from a capon) would
have been a disaster as a king. I think incidents like this tell us a lot about Richard.
>
> the lopping off of heads..well, for the part that was just medieval politics. to bad
morton hadn't made it to the chopping block..or the more traditional treatment for lower
ranking treasonist dogs..hung, drawn and quartered.
>
What possessed Richard to show Morton and all his ilk mercy I will never understand!! His
clemancy cost him his life.

Eileen
> roslyn
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> why is is that we are willing to believe everything evil when it
> comes to the character of Buckingham......or Morton.......but
> protest so loudly if anyone says the same of Richard??????
>
> Personally, I believe that Morton is the key to everything...but
> cannot explain why...just a gut feeling...love to hear other peoples
> opinions on this
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > comments interspersed see below.
> >
> > eileen <ebatesparrot@> wrote: --- In
> , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead,
> done in by Bucks, why
> > did
> > > she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that
> cost her everything.
> > > Eileen
> > > perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long
> as it wasn't h7. and
> > again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
> > >
> > Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also
> meant her daughter losing
> > her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was
> Queen of England I
> > think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her
> put all that at risk.
> > Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you
> accept that, all of
> > Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at
> Richards court, her letter to
> > Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.
> > if..big if..if woodville did believe at least one of her sons
> did survive..she had nothing to lose. her daughter was queen..but
> her son would be king..significantly more powerful than a queen
> consort.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Strange, very strange.
> > > if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have
> been solved eons ago.
> > > r.
> >
> > There is no proof that a murder ever took place.
> >
> > there were reports of the princes being dead as early as sept
> 15, 1483. see
> > http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/richard.html
> >
> > then are more recently discovered records.
> > richard firth discovered a manuscript...
> > Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488
> > for 1483 it states...
> > this yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd
> > Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng
> Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be
> the vise of the duke of Buckingham.
> >
> > there is no proof..no bodies..but there were lots of rumours.
> scholars are debating "be the vise" as does it mean..by the advise
> of buckingham or by the devise of buckingham.
> >
> > i choose the latter. this is why richard and buckingham
> quarrelled and parted ways on july 30th.
> >
> > buckingham was a self serving two faced weasel. e4 knew it..and
> richard found out later. i think if ric had been closer to london,
> and his brother.
> >
> > he would have never let buckingham near the boys..or himself for
> that matter.
> >
> > what i'd like to currently determine..is where was morton from
> the time of his june arrest until brecon.
> >
> > did he travel with buckingham to there..or was he sent there.
> essentially when did morton arrive in wales, and how did he get
> there?
> >
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > > > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October
> 1483, leaving her
> > > daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her
> younger son Henry were
> > > taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been
> consigned to safe keeping. In
> > > December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
> servants from Wales
> > to
> > > London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually
> awarded an annuity of 200
> > > marks by Richard III.
> > > >
> > > > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
> November 1485, to the new
> > > king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of
> Bedford.
> > > >
> > > > end excerpt
> > > > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is
> also from the same odnb
> > > article as above.
> > > > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
> awarded her not merely her
> > > dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified
> under Buckingham's will.
> > Her
> > > total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate;
> the marriage was
> > clearly
> > > intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
> representative in Wales. Bedford
> > > kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems
> to have resided mostly
> > at
> > > Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > > > end excerpt
> > > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard
> > wingfield
> > > without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the
> wingfield marriage.
> > > >
> > > > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
> 1525 will requests masses be
> > > said for her soul.
> > > > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> > > >
> > > > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > > > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> > > Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11
> (1978) · B. J. Harris,
> > Edward
> > > Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The
> marcher lordships of
> > > south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox,
> Richard III, a study of
> > > service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> > > records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library
> Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> > > vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus
> Mancinus ad Angelum
> > > Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
> libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
> > J.
> > > Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng.
> trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> > > Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486
> (1986) · R. F. Green,
> > > `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96
> (1981), 585-90 · A.
> > > Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > > > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> > > 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed.
> R. S. Sylvester (1963),
> > vol.
> > > 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More ·
> St Thomas More,
> > `Historia
> > > Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St
> Thomas More, ed. D.
> > Kinney,
> > > 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great
> chronicle of London (1938)
> > ·
> > > F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the
> leaders and their badges
> > (1925) ·
> > > R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J.
> Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> > > papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during
> the reign of Henry VI, king
> > of
> > > England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
> Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
> > A.
> > > F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The
> Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
> > -92
> > > · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth
> century England, ed.
> > > > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological
> > > Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor
> letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> > > ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the
> University of Cambridge, 1: The
> > > university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
> Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> > > (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the
> fifteenth century
> > (1983) ·
> > > GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> > > >
> > > > Archives:
> > > > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
> material relating to territorial
> > > agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family
> estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
> > 1/
> > > 1, 5, 6.11
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
> was
> > > > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
> intrigued.
> > > > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not
> breach
> > > > copyright
> > > >
> > > > Angela
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united
> > kingdom
> > > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

personally, i think richard really, really had enough of the killing/fighting. he grew up in constant bloodshed, war.

i think in some ways he was a niave person or trusting person.

he made some fatal errors in judgement, mostly of who to place his trust in. i believe his years in the north, ill prepared him for the court intrigue, conspiracy within the "halls of power".

i seem to recall reading somewhere he stated he would reign until e5 was 21, then hand the throne back to the boy. which i thought strange, because of titlus regis.

i also wonder about buckingham and morton. did they set hastings up? implicated him in some way that cost him his life. was morton hiding behind his clerical garments, knowing richard was a religious man, ergo less likely to kill a man of the cloth, vs a "troublesome" noble.

e. woodville used hastings in the past. she arranged for her sons to be married to hastings daughter, should he have one, or to one of his neices. she was paid 500 marks for this contract. it was to protect her from her mother in law and her new husband. the money derived from this marital contract enabled her to dress appropriately to lure/seduce e4.

hastings is another interesting fellow who needs more research. he's married to a woman who is interconnected - related, but he, himself, as far as i've delineated him is almost a family outsider...the inlaw, but not of bloodline.

roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> >
> for me one the most telling stories about richard is when he named his nephew edward
his heir because his queen, anne was ailing and wanted it so. richard pleased anne by
doing so. when anne died he named another heir.
>
> a callous and ambitious man would have ignored the woman's request..doing what was
best for the country.. he really had nothing to lose or gain...it was merely a matter of
time. anne's remaining days were spent knowing her sister's son was heir to the throne. i
think that was an awesome gift to the woman.
>
> to me this is indicative that richard was a compassionate and caring man.

I totally agree with you on this one Roslyn - I have thought this for a long time. Richard
must have known Edward (it was said he could not discern a goose from a capon) would
have been a disaster as a king. I think incidents like this tell us a lot about Richard.
>
> the lopping off of heads..well, for the part that was just medieval politics. to bad
morton hadn't made it to the chopping block..or the more traditional treatment for lower
ranking treasonist dogs..hung, drawn and quartered.
>
What possessed Richard to show Morton and all his ilk mercy I will never understand!! His
clemancy cost him his life.

Eileen
> roslyn
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> why is is that we are willing to believe everything evil when it
> comes to the character of Buckingham......or Morton.......but
> protest so loudly if anyone says the same of Richard??????
>
> Personally, I believe that Morton is the key to everything...but
> cannot explain why...just a gut feeling...love to hear other peoples
> opinions on this
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > comments interspersed see below.
> >
> > eileen <ebatesparrot@> wrote: --- In
> , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > 4. Lastly, if La Woodville had known her boys were long dead,
> done in by Bucks, why
> > did
> > > she get embroiled in the Lambert Simnel uprising - a move that
> cost her everything.
> > > Eileen
> > > perhaps, e woodville didn't care who was on the throne as long
> as it wasn't h7. and
> > again the missing child syndrome..one can always hope.
> > >
> > Well if Woodville wanted Henry off the throne that would also
> meant her daughter losing
> > her throne as well. And when you consider Elizabeths daughter was
> Queen of England I
> > think it would have taken something very powerful to have made her
> put all that at risk.
> > Like knowing that at least one of her sons had survived. If you
> accept that, all of
> > Elizabeth's behaviour - leaving sanctuary, her daughters at
> Richards court, her letter to
> > Grey encouraging to return - becomes very understandable.
> > if..big if..if woodville did believe at least one of her sons
> did survive..she had nothing to lose. her daughter was queen..but
> her son would be king..significantly more powerful than a queen
> consort.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Strange, very strange.
> > > if it wasn't strange, the disappearance and murder would have
> been solved eons ago.
> > > r.
> >
> > There is no proof that a murder ever took place.
> >
> > there were reports of the princes being dead as early as sept
> 15, 1483. see
> > http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/richard.html
> >
> > then are more recently discovered records.
> > richard firth discovered a manuscript...
> > Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488
> > for 1483 it states...
> > this yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd
> > Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng
> Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be
> the vise of the duke of Buckingham.
> >
> > there is no proof..no bodies..but there were lots of rumours.
> scholars are debating "be the vise" as does it mean..by the advise
> of buckingham or by the devise of buckingham.
> >
> > i choose the latter. this is why richard and buckingham
> quarrelled and parted ways on july 30th.
> >
> > buckingham was a self serving two faced weasel. e4 knew it..and
> richard found out later. i think if ric had been closer to london,
> and his brother.
> >
> > he would have never let buckingham near the boys..or himself for
> that matter.
> >
> > what i'd like to currently determine..is where was morton from
> the time of his june arrest until brecon.
> >
> > did he travel with buckingham to there..or was he sent there.
> essentially when did morton arrive in wales, and how did he get
> there?
> >
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > > the odnb states in henry's bio regarding katherine
> > > > She accompanied Buckingham from Brecon to Weobley in October
> 1483, leaving her
> > > daughters at Brecon. When the duke fled, the duchess and her
> younger son Henry were
> > > taken and brought to London. Edward, the heir, had been
> consigned to safe keeping. In
> > > December 1483 the duchess had licence to bring her children and
> servants from Wales
> > to
> > > London. Deprived of dower or jointure, she was eventually
> awarded an annuity of 200
> > > marks by Richard III.
> > > >
> > > > Following Bosworth, Katherine Stafford was married, by 7
> November 1485, to the new
> > > king's 55-year-old bachelor uncle, Jasper Tudor, now duke of
> Bedford.
> > > >
> > > > end excerpt
> > > > it does appear her marriage to jasper was arranged. this is
> also from the same odnb
> > > article as above.
> > > > The act of parliament reversing Buckingham's attainder
> awarded her not merely her
> > > dower but also a jointure of 1000 marks, allegedly specified
> under Buckingham's will.
> > Her
> > > total revenue was some £2500, about half the Buckingham estate;
> the marriage was
> > clearly
> > > intended to bolster Bedford's position as his nephew's
> representative in Wales. Bedford
> > > kept her estates under separate administration. Katherine seems
> to have resided mostly
> > at
> > > Thornbury, Gloucestershire;
> > > > end excerpt
> > > > jasper died dec 21, 1495, and by feb 24, 1496 katherine had
> married richard
> > wingfield
> > > without licence. one of buckingham's sons paid the fine for the
> wingfield marriage.
> > > >
> > > > jasper doesn't mention katherine in his will. wingfield's
> 1525 will requests masses be
> > > said for her soul.
> > > > above info paraphrased from the odnb article.
> > > >
> > > > these are sources for the odnb article.
> > > > C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of
> Buckingham, 1394-1521,
> > > Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 11
> (1978) · B. J. Harris,
> > Edward
> > > Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (1986) · T. B. Pugh, ed., The
> marcher lordships of
> > > south Wales, 1415-1536: select documents (1963) · R. Horrox,
> Richard III, a study of
> > > service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th
> ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery
> > > records · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library
> Harleian manuscript 433, 4
> > > vols. (1979-83) · The usurpation of Richard the third: Dominicus
> Mancinus ad Angelum
> > > Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Ricardum tercium
> libellus, ed. and trans. C. A.
> > J.
> > > Armstrong, 2nd edn (1969) [Lat. orig., 1483, with parallel Eng.
> trans.] · N. Pronay and J.
> > > Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 1459-1486
> (1986) · R. F. Green,
> > > `Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488', EngHR , 96
> (1981), 585-90 · A.
> > > Hanham, Richard III and his early historians,
> > > > 1483-1535 (1975) · Three books of Polydore Vergil's `English
> history', ed. H. Ellis, CS
> > > 29 (1844) · St Thomas More, The history of King Richard III, ed.
> R. S. Sylvester (1963),
> > vol.
> > > 2 of The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More ·
> St Thomas More,
> > `Historia
> > > Richardi Tertii', The Yale edition of the complete works of St
> Thomas More, ed. D.
> > Kinney,
> > > 15 (1986) · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great
> chronicle of London (1938)
> > ·
> > > F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the
> leaders and their badges
> > (1925) ·
> > > R. Dennys, Heraldry and the heralds (1982) · RotP , vol. 5 · J.
> Stevenson, ed., Letters and
> > > papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during
> the reign of Henry VI, king
> > of
> > > England, 2/2, Rolls Series, 22 (1864) [incl. Pseudo-William
> Worcester] · P. B. Farrer and
> > A.
> > > F. Sutton, `The duke of Buckingham's sons, 1483-1485', The
> Ricardian, 6 (1982-4), 87
> > -92
> > > · A. R. Myers, Crown, household, and parliament in fifteenth
> century England, ed.
> > > > C. H. Clough (1985) · A. Raine, ed., York civic records, 1,
> Yorkshire Archaeological
> > > Society, 98 (1939) · [C. L. Kingsford], Kingsford's Stonor
> letters and papers, 1290-1483,
> > > ed. C. Carpenter (1996) · D. R. Leader, A history of the
> University of Cambridge, 1: The
> > > university to 1546, ed. C. N. L. Brooke and others (1988) ·
> Hall's chronicle, ed. H. Ellis
> > > (1809) · C. A. J. Armstrong, England, France and Burgundy in the
> fifteenth century
> > (1983) ·
> > > GEC, Peerage new edn, 2.389-90 · DNB
> > > >
> > > > Archives:
> > > > Staffs. RO , estate accounts; genealogical and heraldic
> material relating to territorial
> > > agreements with Richard III; legal MSS · Staffs. RO family
> estate papers, D/641, D 1721/
> > 1/
> > > 1, 5, 6.11
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was rather surprised to hear your theory that K Woodville
> was
> > > > actively involved in the death of the princes...and also
> intrigued.
> > > > Please share your sources..To give references would surely not
> breach
> > > > copyright
> > > >
> > > > Angela
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united
> > kingdom
> > > United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






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

---------------------------------
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.


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

> >
>
> This theory that Buckingham (with or without Katherines knowledge)
had the princes done
> in - I cant really see it myself - unless I am missing something.
> 1. Why would Bucks have had them done away with PRIOR to having
suceeded in having
> Richard removed from the throne. They were bastards. Titulus
Regius said so. If it was to
> label Richard as a child killer etc., and himself a hero that could
have been easy to
> accomplish once his rebellion had suceeded. After all he would
have been aware of where
> the bodies were concealed.

Bear in mind that Titulus Regius didn't become an Act of Parliament
until January 1484, as the assembly which originally presented and
accepted it didn't in the end have the legal status of a parliament
as there was no king to open it (it had been summoned to follow
Edward V's coronation). And a change in legal status didn't always
deter supporters. There were at least two serious plots to restore
Edward V after his bastardisation.
>
> 2. More importantly, when Richard had discovered what had gone on,
why was it not
> made public knowledge - I would have thought he would have
considered it neccessary to
> have the truth let out if only to absolve himself from any guilt.
Why was a thorough
> investigation not made and anyone involved in the murder brought to
trial, including
> Katherine if she had played a role in the murders?

I agree with Roslyn on this one. You can't agree you gave the Princes
over to this murderous bloke, then say "but I only wanted him to read
them bedtime stories". Or perhaps Richard didn't really have a final
answer on what had happened to them.
>
> 3. It suggested that this information may have helped La Woodville
with her decision to
> leave santuary - I would have thought if she had knowledge of Bucks
guilt then so would
> many others, including Elizabeth of York. It then follows that
Henry the Weasle would
> have been informed - yet it would appear to all intents and
purposes that Henry was in the
> dark as to the fate/whereabouts of the boys himself.

That I do agree with. I suppose that's why I said Elizabeth Woodville
must have discovered either than at least one of her sons were - or
might be - alive (the Tudor marriage would be a death sentence for
themo.That Elizabeth would be unable to accept the her daughter being
forced to marry the man who had murdered her brother, I do believe.
However, if Buckingham was responsible it was presumably for his own
advancement, not Tudor's. A possibility is that Buckingham had
murdered one and spared the other (as the Divisie Chronicle claims).
Or perhaps Richard had given them to Buckingham, knew that B's rebels
had annouced they were both dead but had not been able to find proof
of the deaths. Had he been able to convince Elizabeth Woodville that
they he had not killed them though they were missing, that would be
enough to cause her to call the tudor marriage.
In 1487, however, what was going on? If Elizabeth believed tudor was
behind her sons' deaths, then sure she might join a plot to put
Warwick on the throne and rescue her daughter from Bluebeard. But if
she did it because she had a hope one of them was alive. . . how did
Lovell & Lincoln's rebellion help there? Did she absolutely KNOW one
of them had escaped Buckingham, and she was actually communicating
with another bunch of Yorkist rebels altogether?
Knotty questions. I can really only see those two possibilities which
work for me.

Marie

Can I correct some of my own gibberish?

No wonder there's been a stunned silence since.

Here is roughly what I meant to say.



That I do agree with. I suppose that's why I said Elizabeth Woodville
must have discovered either:-

a) That at least one of her sons was - or might be - alive.
The Tudor marriage would be a death sentence for them. A compromise
possibility here is that Buckingham had murdered one and spared the
other (as the Divisie Chronicle claims).
Or perhaps Richard had given them to Buckingham for safekeeping, knew
that B's rebels had annouced they were both dead but had not been
able to find proof of the deaths. Had he been able to convince
Elizabeth Woodville that he had not killed them, they were only
missing, that would be enough to cause her to call off the Tudor
marriage.

b) That they were dead, but at the hands of Tudor's own people. That
Elizabeth Woodville would be unable to accept her daughter marrying
the man who had murdered her brothers, I can believe. However, if
Buckingham was responsible it was presumably for his own advancement,
not Tudor's, so that wouldn't give La Woodville much incentive to
change her plans. And in 1487, if Elizabeth believed Tudor was behind
her sons' deaths, that could well have been enough to make her join
that plot to put Warwick on the throne and rescue her daughter from
Bluebeard.

However, if she only thought in 1487 that one of her sons MIGHT be
alive, how would that have worked for her? Hard to see it. Did she
absolutely KNOW (at least by that time) that one of them had escaped
death, and she was actually communicating with another bunch of
Yorkist rebels altogether?

Knotty questions. I'm left with the choice between Tudor's agents
having killed them both, or Elizabeth Woodville having positive
knowledge in 1487 of the survival and whereabouts of at least one of
her sons.

Marie