Just an idea

According to Castelli, Arthur Viscount Lisle had three daughters, all of whom married. The youngest, Frances, took Thomas Monck (c. 1515-83) of Potheridge, Devon as her second husband.
It is an unusual spelling of the surname and brings to mind General Monck who summoned Charles II home. I wonder?

--- In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> According to Castelli, Arthur Viscount Lisle had three daughters, all
of whom married. The youngest, Frances, took Thomas Monck (c. 1515-83)
of Potheridge, Devon as her second husband.
> It is an unusual spelling of the surname and brings to mind General
Monck who summoned Charles II home. I wonder?
>
>
>
>
I was right and have posted a small file.

As you know, Hicks has an alternative identity for Edward IV's "Elusive Mistress", Lady Lucy. Just like Elizabeth Woodville and Lady Eleanor, she was a widow older than him.

The "pre-contract", as detailed in TR 1484, stated that Edward was legally married to Lady Eleanor before he went through a ceremony with Woodville. As we also know, early Tudor sources tried to substitute Lady Lucy for Lady Eleanor, before later ones denied the story.

Just suppose, for a moment that both we and the early Tudor writers were right. A man who could take a second "wife" whilst still married to his first could easily be a trigamist. All three were widows older than himself with no public ceremony. The first marriage would definitely be the one to Lady Eleanor.

I am not saying that I believe this but how plausible is it?

it is plausible, but unlikely e4 promised marriage to several or all of his conquests. the lady lucy incident is cited in hall or hollinshed's chronicle. there, lady lucy says e4 never promised marriage, but she had hoped for it. this exonerated e4 from the bigamy label. titulus regis correctly names eleanor boteler nee talbot as the woman of the precontract.

via the tudor rumour mill lady lucy became lady elizabeth lucy. marie walsh sorted her out about the same time as hicks. the lady lucy of tudor fame is margaret hankford (sp) according to hicks. marie did hicks one better and got margaret's true maiden name fitzlewis/lewis.

she is/was also known as fitzjohn or johan. moreover, she was "the" lady lucy. her husband william lucy died circa 1460. his first wife was elizabeth percy d. 1455. ergo this is where margaret's name became known as elizabeth lucy.

old bill lucy's second wife *margaret fitzlewis* is the mother of margaret..not elizabeth who married a lord lumley. the confusing of margaret for elizabeth forenames has lead historians and genealogists on a merry chase for these past centuries.

so in summation, hicks is only partly correct. marie got the proper birth surname. hicks tagged lady lucy with her stepfather's surname.

marie and i sorted out which william lucy miss margaret fitzlewis had married months ago in an off forum communication.

and btw..elizabeth waite, a widow is the mother of arthur waite/plantagenet. i'm still seeking widow waite's husband's forename. i have her maiden name, but i need to verify, with his forename i should be able to get these ducks in a row. the widow waite is hanging out with the right social crowd to have been a e4 conquest.

so..that leaves eleanor talbot as NOT the mother of arthur plantagenet/waite. but she still could be the mother of edward of wigmore..if he existed...and i've not even touched that aspect of the research yet, other than to know there is a rumour.
later
roslyn

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
As you know, Hicks has an alternative identity for Edward IV's "Elusive Mistress", Lady Lucy. Just like Elizabeth Woodville and Lady Eleanor, she was a widow older than him.

The "pre-contract", as detailed in TR 1484, stated that Edward was legally married to Lady Eleanor before he went through a ceremony with Woodville. As we also know, early Tudor sources tried to substitute Lady Lucy for Lady Eleanor, before later ones denied the story.

Just suppose, for a moment that both we and the early Tudor writers were right. A man who could take a second "wife" whilst still married to his first could easily be a trigamist. All three were widows older than himself with no public ceremony. The first marriage would definitely be the one to Lady Eleanor.

I am not saying that I believe this but how plausible is it?

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> it is plausible, but unlikely e4 promised marriage to several or
all of his conquests. the lady lucy incident is cited in hall or
hollinshed's chronicle. there, lady lucy says e4 never promised
marriage, but she had hoped for it. this exonerated e4 from the
bigamy label. titulus regis correctly names eleanor boteler nee
talbot as the woman of the precontract.
>
> via the tudor rumour mill lady lucy became lady elizabeth lucy.
marie walsh sorted her out about the same time as hicks. the lady
lucy of tudor fame is margaret hankford (sp) according to hicks.
marie did hicks one better and got margaret's true maiden name
fitzlewis/lewis.
>
> she is/was also known as fitzjohn or johan. moreover, she
was "the" lady lucy. her husband william lucy died circa 1460. his
first wife was elizabeth percy d. 1455. ergo this is where margaret's
name became known as elizabeth lucy.
>
> old bill lucy's second wife *margaret fitzlewis* is the mother of
margaret..not elizabeth who married a lord lumley. the confusing of
margaret for elizabeth forenames has lead historians and genealogists
on a merry chase for these past centuries.
>
> so in summation, hicks is only partly correct. marie got the
proper birth surname. hicks tagged lady lucy with her stepfather's
surname.
>
> marie and i sorted out which william lucy miss margaret fitzlewis
had married months ago in an off forum communication.
>
> and btw..elizabeth waite, a widow is the mother of arthur
waite/plantagenet. i'm still seeking widow waite's husband's
forename. i have her maiden name, but i need to verify, with his
forename i should be able to get these ducks in a row. the widow
waite is hanging out with the right social crowd to have been a e4
conquest.
>
> so..that leaves eleanor talbot as NOT the mother of arthur
plantagenet/waite. but she still could be the mother of edward of
wigmore..if he existed...and i've not even touched that aspect of the
research yet, other than to know there is a rumour.
> later
> roslyn
>
Yes, the mistress's forename, and hence that of her daughter, has
been corrected, thankfully. Looking forward to those revelations
about Mrs. Waite which would confirm Arthur - and thus General Monck -
as Edward IV descendants.

I still do not think that Lady Eleanor could have had any children as
remains, probably of her, have been found. However, the dispensation
has been translated - no extra names mentioned - and it looks as if
there can only be one consanguinity of the couple that would
necessitate it: Edward IV and Lady Lucy being RLL's maternal
grandparents.

PS Does the Society sell cushions?

> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> As you know, Hicks has an alternative identity for Edward
IV's "Elusive Mistress", Lady Lucy. Just like Elizabeth Woodville and
Lady Eleanor, she was a widow older than him.
>
> The "pre-contract", as detailed in TR 1484, stated that Edward was
legally married to Lady Eleanor before he went through a ceremony
with Woodville. As we also know, early Tudor sources tried to
substitute Lady Lucy for Lady Eleanor, before later ones denied the
story.
>
> Just suppose, for a moment that both we and the early Tudor writers
were right. A man who could take a second "wife" whilst still married
to his first could easily be a trigamist. All three were widows older
than himself with no public ceremony. The first marriage would
definitely be the one to Lady Eleanor.
>
> I am not saying that I believe this but how plausible is it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>