Perkin Warbeck
Perkin Warbeck
2006-05-20 03:24:34
Did a Yahoo Image search for Perkin Warbeck and you are right!!! Just look at the chin!!! Hmmm.....
Angie
Angie
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2006-05-20 20:37:48
--- In , "Angie Flanagan" <aflanagan7372@...>
wrote:
>
> Did a Yahoo Image search for Perkin Warbeck and you are right!!! Just look at the chin!!!
Hmmm.....
>
> Angie
Exactly! One picture can paint a thousand words or whatever it is they say. Of course
Perkin could have been one of Edwards bastards - but I do believe, as
in the case of Henry Vlll and Charles ll, his mistresses were no secret and were openly
acknowledged - hence it unlikely (at a guess) any of Edwards bastards were 'secret'. Of
course Edward was a man who kept his brain in his pants - a sex machine on legs! Well OK
whatever melts your butter, unfortunetly Edwards penchant for must have what he wants
(sexually) resulted in a woefully bad choice of queen - which, ultimately, led to the
destruction of the Plantagenet dynasty. Sadly other people had to pay the price for his lust
ie his two sons, his nephew, his niece and of course Richard as well as countless good
men who died fighting for their king at Bosworth. And, I dont suppose La Woodville was
exactly thrilled ending her days incarcerated in Bermondsey Abbey. Possibly could include
George here but dont like him so couldnt care less about his fate.
But I digress - returning back to Perkin - if you should ever be able to visit Canterbury
Cathedral and look up at those breathtaking beautiful windows depicting Edward and his
family, think on about if Perkin WAS who he actually said he was, what a terrible fate for a
young man who had grown up surrounded by every priviledge and comfort, in an attempt
to take back his crown from a usurper, lost his life in most awful circumstances. I have
read he would have been hung drawn and quartered but because he was so weak did not
survive the hanging.
Eileen
>
>
>
wrote:
>
> Did a Yahoo Image search for Perkin Warbeck and you are right!!! Just look at the chin!!!
Hmmm.....
>
> Angie
Exactly! One picture can paint a thousand words or whatever it is they say. Of course
Perkin could have been one of Edwards bastards - but I do believe, as
in the case of Henry Vlll and Charles ll, his mistresses were no secret and were openly
acknowledged - hence it unlikely (at a guess) any of Edwards bastards were 'secret'. Of
course Edward was a man who kept his brain in his pants - a sex machine on legs! Well OK
whatever melts your butter, unfortunetly Edwards penchant for must have what he wants
(sexually) resulted in a woefully bad choice of queen - which, ultimately, led to the
destruction of the Plantagenet dynasty. Sadly other people had to pay the price for his lust
ie his two sons, his nephew, his niece and of course Richard as well as countless good
men who died fighting for their king at Bosworth. And, I dont suppose La Woodville was
exactly thrilled ending her days incarcerated in Bermondsey Abbey. Possibly could include
George here but dont like him so couldnt care less about his fate.
But I digress - returning back to Perkin - if you should ever be able to visit Canterbury
Cathedral and look up at those breathtaking beautiful windows depicting Edward and his
family, think on about if Perkin WAS who he actually said he was, what a terrible fate for a
young man who had grown up surrounded by every priviledge and comfort, in an attempt
to take back his crown from a usurper, lost his life in most awful circumstances. I have
read he would have been hung drawn and quartered but because he was so weak did not
survive the hanging.
Eileen
>
>
>
Perkin Warbeck
2012-11-15 16:35:12
Yahoo won't let me reply directly, so I'll just quote Karen's short post and respond from there:
Karen wrote:
Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
Carol responds:
Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al., temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed) would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender, but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender) and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
Rhetorical questions, of course.
Carol
Karen wrote:
Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
Carol responds:
Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al., temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed) would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender, but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender) and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
Rhetorical questions, of course.
Carol
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2012-11-15 17:05:15
I think it's not that the Irish didn't assign him a number, just that there is no number on the Irish Edwardus coin. It's not clear actually whether it belongs to Edward V or the 1487 pretender. But I'm not sure the king's ever were numbered on the coins. I think John Ashdown-Hill has written about this in the Ricardian. He is very good on the 'hardware' side of history, so perhaps we ought to check.
Nor is the age of the pretender given incorrectly (for Warwick) in any reliable source. It is only Vergil who tells us Warwick was 15, and that is not even in the context of the rebellion but hwen he was telling us about Henry removing him from Sheriff Hutton to the Tower - he probabnly wanted to make that sound less bad than would really have been the case (after all, Henry had made capital out of Richard's "imprisonment" of Edward V and his brother in the Tower). According to the Act of Parliament Lambert Simnel was actually a younger than the real Warwick. Methinks Gordon Smith picks the "evidence" that supports his case.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Yahoo won't let me reply directly, so I'll just quote Karen's short post and respond from there:
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
> certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al., temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed) would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
>
> I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender, but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
>
> And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender) and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
>
> Rhetorical questions, of course.
>
> Carol
>
Nor is the age of the pretender given incorrectly (for Warwick) in any reliable source. It is only Vergil who tells us Warwick was 15, and that is not even in the context of the rebellion but hwen he was telling us about Henry removing him from Sheriff Hutton to the Tower - he probabnly wanted to make that sound less bad than would really have been the case (after all, Henry had made capital out of Richard's "imprisonment" of Edward V and his brother in the Tower). According to the Act of Parliament Lambert Simnel was actually a younger than the real Warwick. Methinks Gordon Smith picks the "evidence" that supports his case.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Yahoo won't let me reply directly, so I'll just quote Karen's short post and respond from there:
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
> certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al., temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed) would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
>
> I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender, but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
>
> And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender) and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
>
> Rhetorical questions, of course.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2012-11-15 17:30:35
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:35:10 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Perkin Warbeck
Yahoo won't let me reply directly, so I'll just quote Karen's short post and
respond from there:
Karen wrote:
Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would
he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
Carol responds:
Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al.,
temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real
Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I
can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or
Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and
faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers
bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention
killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay
with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would
probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle
Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons
were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed)
would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching
loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was
Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the
men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What
I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him
to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender,
but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old
Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which
suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of
Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the
circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She
was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with
Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender)
and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of
York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or
was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
Rhetorical questions, of course.
Carol
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:35:10 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Perkin Warbeck
Yahoo won't let me reply directly, so I'll just quote Karen's short post and
respond from there:
Karen wrote:
Y"es, my 'everybody knew' was a little lazy. I'd have thought Lincoln
certainly knew, and that leads directly to your question. Why on earth would
he back someone he knew to be an impostor?"
Carol responds:
Actually, that wasn't my question. I can see Lincoln, Lovell, et al.,
temporarily backing an imposter until they got their hands on the real
Warwick (who would know Lincoln well and be easy to manipulate). What I
can't understand is why those two men would back the real Edward V or
Richard of York, especially the first, given that they had loyally and
faithfully supported the man who deposed Edward V and had both brothers
bastardized (with reason--I'm not criticizing Richard III), not to mention
killed Edward's dear Uncle Anthony. Richard of York might have been okay
with these men as his supporters, but Edward V when he came of age would
probably have arranged for their executions (a la Richard II and his uncle
Thomas of Woodstock). Besides, reneging on their position that Edward's sons
were bastards (regardless of the fact that Titulus Regius had been repealed)
would make them look like timeservers. Not as bad, however, as switching
loyalties to the Tydder, which, thank heaven, none of them did.
I can see Gordon Smith's argument that the Edwardus crowned in Ireland was
Edward V given his age, his name, and the fact that the Irish (unlike the
men of York, writing after it was all over) didn't assign him a number. What
I can't see is Lincoln and Lovell supporting Edward V even if they knew him
to be alive. I *can* see them supporting Edward of Warwick via a pretender,
but, if so, how do we account for the age discrepancy between ten-year-old
Warwick and the fifteen-year-old (or older) youth crowned in Ireland?
And what about the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret, which
suggests (only suggests, not proves) that Richard had placed one or both of
Edward's sons in her keeping? Who would she have supported under the
circumstances, assuming that one or both of Edward's sons were alive? She
was on excellent terms with both Richard and George, not so good with
Edward. Maybe she originally went with Edward of Warwick (via a pretender)
and only after Edward V's death from natural causes went with Richard of
York (again assuming that Richard had placed both nephews in her care). Or
was she simply out to unseat the Tudor by any means possible?
Rhetorical questions, of course.
Carol
Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 12:29:47
What is the R3 Societys official view (if there is such a thing as an official view) regarding Perkin Warbeck, was he Richard of York? or was he Perkin Warbeck and therefore just a son of a Flemish boatman?
I thank you in advance for your help with this.
Stuart.
I thank you in advance for your help with this.
Stuart.
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 14:18:26
There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
As the mystery youth was publicly hanged in 1499, we can say that if he was Richard of Shrewsbury then Richard of Eastwell (d.c.1550) was not and vice versa.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Perkin Warbeck
What is the R3 Societys official view (if there is such a thing as an official view) regarding Perkin Warbeck, was he Richard of York? or was he Perkin Warbeck and therefore just a son of a Flemish boatman?
I thank you in advance for your help with this.
Stuart.
As the mystery youth was publicly hanged in 1499, we can say that if he was Richard of Shrewsbury then Richard of Eastwell (d.c.1550) was not and vice versa.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Perkin Warbeck
What is the R3 Societys official view (if there is such a thing as an official view) regarding Perkin Warbeck, was he Richard of York? or was he Perkin Warbeck and therefore just a son of a Flemish boatman?
I thank you in advance for your help with this.
Stuart.
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 16:22:58
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
Carol responds:
I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
Carol
>
> There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
Carol responds:
I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
Carol
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 16:36:27
There is no official view. There is no official view on anything that is not absolutely proven.
Marie
--- In , "Stuart" wrote:
>
> What is the R3 Societys official view (if there is such a thing as an official view) regarding Perkin Warbeck, was he Richard of York? or was he Perkin Warbeck and therefore just a son of a Flemish boatman?
>
> I thank you in advance for your help with this.
>
> Stuart.
>
Marie
--- In , "Stuart" wrote:
>
> What is the R3 Societys official view (if there is such a thing as an official view) regarding Perkin Warbeck, was he Richard of York? or was he Perkin Warbeck and therefore just a son of a Flemish boatman?
>
> I thank you in advance for your help with this.
>
> Stuart.
>
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 16:56:13
One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
Brian W
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
>
> I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
>
> Carol
>
OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
Brian W
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
>
> I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 18:49:01
"Brian" wrote:
>
> One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
>
> OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
Carol responds:
I think it's more likely that he was an illegitimate son of George's, but the evidence is very scanty and confusing. I do wonder about that charge of trying to smuggle his son out of the country and why so few historians have commented on it. Most of the attention has focused on charges of illegitimacy, whether George could have known about the Eleanor Butler precontract (marriage), and what could have pushed Edward to the point that he would actually execute George after tolerating his treason, greed, and irrationality for so long.
Carol
>
> One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
>
> OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
Carol responds:
I think it's more likely that he was an illegitimate son of George's, but the evidence is very scanty and confusing. I do wonder about that charge of trying to smuggle his son out of the country and why so few historians have commented on it. Most of the attention has focused on charges of illegitimacy, whether George could have known about the Eleanor Butler precontract (marriage), and what could have pushed Edward to the point that he would actually execute George after tolerating his treason, greed, and irrationality for so long.
Carol
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-12 19:12:19
It's a possibility, and it would of course open up a whole can of worms. But Edward IV must have been pretty convinced it hadn't happened.
marie
--- In , "Brian" wrote:
>
> One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
>
> OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
> >
> > I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
marie
--- In , "Brian" wrote:
>
> One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
>
> OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no official view as there is insufficient evidence to date - or there is evidence that hasn't been analysed. He could have been Richard of Shrewsbury, he could have been a coinscious fraud or he could have been just deluded.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think his knowledge of English (which I believe he spoke without an accent) and of events at court after Margaret of Burgundy left persuaded a number of people that he could not be some Flemish imposter. (I don't think anyone at the time suggested that he was deluded, only that he had been carefully coached.) There is, however, the possibility, suggested by a reference to a "son of Clarence" in Margaret's household, that he was indeed her nephew as she repeatedly stated--just not the one he claimed to be. (If true, he would have have been imprisoned in the Tower with his own legitimate half-brother, Edward of Warwick.)
> >
> > I am not arguing for this idea, just presenting it as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Perkin Warbeck
2013-02-13 00:52:34
It's like Hastings' execution, isn't it? What was the step too far? And how come they didn't write it down for us?
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> "Brian" wrote:
> >
> > One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
> >
> > OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think it's more likely that he was an illegitimate son of George's, but the evidence is very scanty and confusing. I do wonder about that charge of trying to smuggle his son out of the country and why so few historians have commented on it. Most of the attention has focused on charges of illegitimacy, whether George could have known about the Eleanor Butler precontract (marriage), and what could have pushed Edward to the point that he would actually execute George after tolerating his treason, greed, and irrationality for so long.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> "Brian" wrote:
> >
> > One weird thought hat occurs to me is:- What if George was successful in his alleged attempt to get his son out of the country, and the boy we know as 'Warwick' was actually a substitute?
> >
> > OK, crazy idea perhaps, but no crazier than some I've seen knocking about.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think it's more likely that he was an illegitimate son of George's, but the evidence is very scanty and confusing. I do wonder about that charge of trying to smuggle his son out of the country and why so few historians have commented on it. Most of the attention has focused on charges of illegitimacy, whether George could have known about the Eleanor Butler precontract (marriage), and what could have pushed Edward to the point that he would actually execute George after tolerating his treason, greed, and irrationality for so long.
>
> Carol
>
Perkin Warbeck
2013-04-13 19:17:36
Perkin Warbeck was one of the pretenders that appeared during Henry VII's reign. He claimed to be Richard IV (son of Edward IV) and was remarkably persistent in doing so.
What is perhaps less well known is that he married a high-ranking Scottish lady who was related to James IV. They had a child, though the child disappeared after PWs capture, although Henry generally treated his wife well. Rumours emerged that his son may have been placed in Wales and some people claimed that their lineage went back to this person.
Given the recent interest in Richard III and the DNA test that helped confirm that the body found was him, I thought it would be really interesting to carry out a similar test on one of the descendents of Perkin Warbeck.
If the result is positive - it may let Richard off the hook for one of the princes in the tower - or if its a false positive, it may suggest that Perkin Warbeck was perhaps an illegitimate offspring of Margaret (Edward IVs sister). Another complication may arise if PWs wife is in some related to the House of York.
I can see one further complication: Edward IV and Richard III are thought to be possible step-brothers. Cicely Neville is thought to have had a fling with an archer and then had a "miracle" pregnancy. But I don't know enough about DNA tests to tell whether it might work.
What is perhaps less well known is that he married a high-ranking Scottish lady who was related to James IV. They had a child, though the child disappeared after PWs capture, although Henry generally treated his wife well. Rumours emerged that his son may have been placed in Wales and some people claimed that their lineage went back to this person.
Given the recent interest in Richard III and the DNA test that helped confirm that the body found was him, I thought it would be really interesting to carry out a similar test on one of the descendents of Perkin Warbeck.
If the result is positive - it may let Richard off the hook for one of the princes in the tower - or if its a false positive, it may suggest that Perkin Warbeck was perhaps an illegitimate offspring of Margaret (Edward IVs sister). Another complication may arise if PWs wife is in some related to the House of York.
I can see one further complication: Edward IV and Richard III are thought to be possible step-brothers. Cicely Neville is thought to have had a fling with an archer and then had a "miracle" pregnancy. But I don't know enough about DNA tests to tell whether it might work.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.