Re: A subset of the "English Civil War" cast and their connections t

I would be interested if anyone has more information on this Arthur Wayte (or Waite)
since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut its provenance.

I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in the 1920's and 30's.

Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if you can help me out.

Thanks,
Janet T.

--- In , "Janet ."
<forevere@...> wrote:
>
> I would be interested if anyone has more information on this Arthur
Wayte (or Waite)
> since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut its
provenance.
>
> I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in the
1920's and 30's.
>
> Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if you
can help me out.
>
> Thanks,
> Janet T.
>
>
>
I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need to
get back to the site after a PC problem over Christmas. "Fayrerose"
gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's uncle.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet ."
> <forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > I would be interested if anyone has more information on this
Arthur
> Wayte (or Waite)
> > since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut
its
> provenance.
> >
> > I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in the
> 1920's and 30's.
> >
> > Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if
you
> can help me out.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Janet T.
> >
> >
> >
> I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need to
> get back to the site after a PC problem over
Christmas. "Fayrerose"
> gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
> There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
> Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
> confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
> mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
> Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's uncle.



Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that Arthur Wayte/Waite (the latter
spelling is the more usually-seen one) existed and that he was one
of Edward IV's bastards by Elizabeth Lucy nee Waite.

I just don't believe that the man who eventually became Viscount
Lisle through his marriage to Elizabeth Grey was the same person.
None of the milestone dates in his life jibe -- everything happens
20 years later than the norm.

He might be the son of the Arthur Waite whose father was Edward IV.
Or he might be a total ringer conjured up by Henry the Weasel if he
wanted to refute the observation that he had rounded up and done
away with all the Plantagenets he could get hold of, including women
and young boys.

Katy

i think arthur's mother, real mother needs to be determined. instinct is saying he is the son of eleanor talbot aka elizabeth lucy per titilus regis. i'm still rummaging about for a hint/lead/clue to begin verification.

my theory is arthur went into hiding at the time of e4's death. he does not surface until after all those who could have identified him are dead. i.e. woodville; she would of known who the mothers of e4 illegits were.

eliz of york takes him into her household where he plays a minor role.
arthur was part of that royal family. his father e4 even designed his "badge" for him.

and remember, h7 had titilus regis repealed, thereby making eliz of york legitimate, and therefore this makes arthur, if he is the son of talbot, an illegit as talbot's betrothal would not have been recognised as a marriage as it had under richard iii.

moore tells us, the woman e4 was betrothed to was lady lucy. her first name elizabeth was added later if i correctly reacall..anyhow, all copies of titilus regis are "shredded". yet, several hundrend years later a copy that does surface says eleanor butler aka talbot is the betrayed real wife of e4...meanwhile we are told arthur is the son of lady lucy too.

it is after h7 dies that arthur really begins to pick up "social speed". he's h8's good ole uncle arthur, who just happens to come on the scene about the time h8's big brother arthur dies. i have to wonder if arthur was part of prince arthur and catherine of aragon's household.

i find it interesting that elizabeth dudley nee grey, is descendent of elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor talbot. the d'lisle title comes from the talbot family.

elizabeth grey-dudley eventually got the lisle title back from charles brandon. brandon had married mary tudor, younger sis of h8. however, prior to that he had been betrothed in 1513 to another elizabeth grey b. 1505, after the death of her mother muriel howard, (dau of john/jock d. of norfolk.)

brandon got the wardship of this child from h8, and then became betrothed to her marry. the girl is supposed to have refused to marry brandon..and the cad then ups and secretly marries mary tudor...and keeps the d'lisle title. this little girl is then married to henry courtenay, grandson to e4 by his daughter katherine. little eliz died in 1519, and brandon continues to hold the lisle title until 1523.

then along comes the almost invisible arthur who marries the aunt eliz grey-dudley, and it is to this couple brandon hands back the title to the grey/talbot lineage.

why? the title should have been returned to little eliz when brandon married mary tudor. the title should have been turned over to little eliz when her wardship and marriage rights were given to katherine plantagent/courtenay. after little eliz married courtenay the title should have been given tho her husband, henry courtenay and then upon his 1539 execution, the title then should have gone back to the grey/talbot descent line/family. little eliz and henry had no children.

what's with the lisle title? it wasn't just for women only. little eliz's father john held it. he died in the fall of 1504, and little eliz inherited upon her birth in march 1505.

another interesting point, when elizabeth grey-dudley died, the title should have passed on to her eldest son, but arthur got to keep it.

also...where was arthur from the time of his birth, which i believe to be prior to 1464, until he surfaces in 1502. was he in europe or ireland? was he previously married? if so what happened to that family?

muriel byrne argues that many of arthur's physical accomplishments weren't that unusual..i.e. jousting at age 40. remember john howard d. of norfolk was well over 60 at bosworth.

i have byrne's six volume set of the lisle letters..i've been trying to find time to plough thru it too..sigh.

still up past my eyes in alligators with business commitments.
later

roslyn


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet ."
> <forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > I would be interested if anyone has more information on this
Arthur
> Wayte (or Waite)
> > since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut
its
> provenance.
> >
> > I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in the
> 1920's and 30's.
> >
> > Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if
you
> can help me out.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Janet T.
> >
> >
> >
> I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need to
> get back to the site after a PC problem over
Christmas. "Fayrerose"
> gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
> There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
> Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
> confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
> mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
> Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's uncle.

Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that Arthur Wayte/Waite (the latter
spelling is the more usually-seen one) existed and that he was one
of Edward IV's bastards by Elizabeth Lucy nee Waite.

I just don't believe that the man who eventually became Viscount
Lisle through his marriage to Elizabeth Grey was the same person.
None of the milestone dates in his life jibe -- everything happens
20 years later than the norm.

He might be the son of the Arthur Waite whose father was Edward IV.
Or he might be a total ringer conjured up by Henry the Weasel if he
wanted to refute the observation that he had rounded up and done
away with all the Plantagenets he could get hold of, including women
and young boys.

Katy

Where is the evidence that Arthur, Viscount Lisle, was the son of Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, whether they were the same person or different people? As far as I know, this is simply an assumption. It is the assumption from that assumption that he was born in or before 1464 that causes the date problem. If he was not the son of Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, and there is no positive evidence of the date of his birth either (again, as far as I know, there is not), then he could have been born at any time up to the end of 1483 (given that Edward IV died on 9 April 1483). If he was born near the end of Edward IV's reign, say 1480-82, the dates for his recorded acts are about right.

Ann



fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i think arthur's mother, real mother needs to be determined. instinct is saying he is the son of eleanor talbot aka elizabeth lucy per titilus regis. i'm still rummaging about for a hint/lead/clue to begin verification.

my theory is arthur went into hiding at the time of e4's death. he does not surface until after all those who could have identified him are dead. i.e. woodville; she would of known who the mothers of e4 illegits were.

eliz of york takes him into her household where he plays a minor role.
arthur was part of that royal family. his father e4 even designed his "badge" for him.

and remember, h7 had titilus regis repealed, thereby making eliz of york legitimate, and therefore this makes arthur, if he is the son of talbot, an illegit as talbot's betrothal would not have been recognised as a marriage as it had under richard iii.

moore tells us, the woman e4 was betrothed to was lady lucy. her first name elizabeth was added later if i correctly reacall..anyhow, all copies of titilus regis are "shredded". yet, several hundrend years later a copy that does surface says eleanor butler aka talbot is the betrayed real wife of e4...meanwhile we are told arthur is the son of lady lucy too.

it is after h7 dies that arthur really begins to pick up "social speed". he's h8's good ole uncle arthur, who just happens to come on the scene about the time h8's big brother arthur dies. i have to wonder if arthur was part of prince arthur and catherine of aragon's household.

i find it interesting that elizabeth dudley nee grey, is descendent of elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor talbot. the d'lisle title comes from the talbot family.

elizabeth grey-dudley eventually got the lisle title back from charles brandon. brandon had married mary tudor, younger sis of h8. however, prior to that he had been betrothed in 1513 to another elizabeth grey b. 1505, after the death of her mother muriel howard, (dau of john/jock d. of norfolk.)

brandon got the wardship of this child from h8, and then became betrothed to her marry. the girl is supposed to have refused to marry brandon..and the cad then ups and secretly marries mary tudor...and keeps the d'lisle title. this little girl is then married to henry courtenay, grandson to e4 by his daughter katherine. little eliz died in 1519, and brandon continues to hold the lisle title until 1523.

then along comes the almost invisible arthur who marries the aunt eliz grey-dudley, and it is to this couple brandon hands back the title to the grey/talbot lineage.

why? the title should have been returned to little eliz when brandon married mary tudor. the title should have been turned over to little eliz when her wardship and marriage rights were given to katherine plantagent/courtenay. after little eliz married courtenay the title should have been given tho her husband, henry courtenay and then upon his 1539 execution, the title then should have gone back to the grey/talbot descent line/family. little eliz and henry had no children.

what's with the lisle title? it wasn't just for women only. little eliz's father john held it. he died in the fall of 1504, and little eliz inherited upon her birth in march 1505.

another interesting point, when elizabeth grey-dudley died, the title should have passed on to her eldest son, but arthur got to keep it.

also...where was arthur from the time of his birth, which i believe to be prior to 1464, until he surfaces in 1502. was he in europe or ireland? was he previously married? if so what happened to that family?

muriel byrne argues that many of arthur's physical accomplishments weren't that unusual..i.e. jousting at age 40. remember john howard d. of norfolk was well over 60 at bosworth.

i have byrne's six volume set of the lisle letters..i've been trying to find time to plough thru it too..sigh.

still up past my eyes in alligators with business commitments.
later

roslyn


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet ."
> <forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > I would be interested if anyone has more information on this
Arthur
> Wayte (or Waite)
> > since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut
its
> provenance.
> >
> > I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in the
> 1920's and 30's.
> >
> > Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if
you
> can help me out.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Janet T.
> >
> >
> >
> I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need to
> get back to the site after a PC problem over
Christmas. "Fayrerose"
> gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
> There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
> Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
> confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
> mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
> Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's uncle.

Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that Arthur Wayte/Waite (the latter
spelling is the more usually-seen one) existed and that he was one
of Edward IV's bastards by Elizabeth Lucy nee Waite.

I just don't believe that the man who eventually became Viscount
Lisle through his marriage to Elizabeth Grey was the same person.
None of the milestone dates in his life jibe -- everything happens
20 years later than the norm.

He might be the son of the Arthur Waite whose father was Edward IV.
Or he might be a total ringer conjured up by Henry the Weasel if he
wanted to refute the observation that he had rounded up and done
away with all the Plantagenets he could get hold of, including women
and young boys.

Katy

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Where is the evidence that Arthur, Viscount Lisle, was the son of
Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, whether they were the same person
or different people? As far as I know, this is simply an assumption.
It is the assumption from that assumption that he was born in or
before 1464 that causes the date problem. If he was not the son of
Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, and there is no positive evidence
of the date of his birth either (again, as far as I know, there is
not), then he could have been born at any time up to the end of 1483
(given that Edward IV died on 9 April 1483). If he was born near the
end of Edward IV's reign, say 1480-82, the dates for his recorded
acts are about right.
>
> Ann
>
> We do know, due to forensic evidence, that Eleanor Talbot had no
children. We also have research by Peter Hammond and J.A-H confirming
the identity of Edward's mistress who had at least one child - the
future Lady Lumley, as the dispensation confirms - therefore she was
not Eleanor Talbot. Most of us believe that Arthur Waite was Edward's
natural son by the same mistress. An Arthur Waite was the ancestor of
General Monck and some sources identify them as the same man.
So he fathered children at 60? So has Douglas Hurd - I think he
exists. Des O' Connor, by the way was about 73.
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i think arthur's mother, real mother needs to be
determined. instinct is saying he is the son of eleanor talbot aka
elizabeth lucy per titilus regis. i'm still rummaging about for a
hint/lead/clue to begin verification.
>
> my theory is arthur went into hiding at the time of e4's death. he
does not surface until after all those who could have identified him
are dead. i.e. woodville; she would of known who the mothers of e4
illegits were.
>
> eliz of york takes him into her household where he plays a minor
role.
> arthur was part of that royal family. his father e4 even designed
his "badge" for him.
>
> and remember, h7 had titilus regis repealed, thereby making eliz of
york legitimate, and therefore this makes arthur, if he is the son of
talbot, an illegit as talbot's betrothal would not have been
recognised as a marriage as it had under richard iii.
>
> moore tells us, the woman e4 was betrothed to was lady lucy. her
first name elizabeth was added later if i correctly reacall..anyhow,
all copies of titilus regis are "shredded". yet, several hundrend
years later a copy that does surface says eleanor butler aka talbot
is the betrayed real wife of e4...meanwhile we are told arthur is the
son of lady lucy too.
>
> it is after h7 dies that arthur really begins to pick up "social
speed". he's h8's good ole uncle arthur, who just happens to come on
the scene about the time h8's big brother arthur dies. i have to
wonder if arthur was part of prince arthur and catherine of aragon's
household.
>
> i find it interesting that elizabeth dudley nee grey, is descendent
of elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor talbot. the d'lisle title comes
from the talbot family.
>
> elizabeth grey-dudley eventually got the lisle title back from
charles brandon. brandon had married mary tudor, younger sis of h8.
however, prior to that he had been betrothed in 1513 to another
elizabeth grey b. 1505, after the death of her mother muriel howard,
(dau of john/jock d. of norfolk.)
>
> brandon got the wardship of this child from h8, and then became
betrothed to her marry. the girl is supposed to have refused to marry
brandon..and the cad then ups and secretly marries mary tudor...and
keeps the d'lisle title. this little girl is then married to henry
courtenay, grandson to e4 by his daughter katherine. little eliz died
in 1519, and brandon continues to hold the lisle title until 1523.
>
> then along comes the almost invisible arthur who marries the aunt
eliz grey-dudley, and it is to this couple brandon hands back the
title to the grey/talbot lineage.
>
> why? the title should have been returned to little eliz when
brandon married mary tudor. the title should have been turned over to
little eliz when her wardship and marriage rights were given to
katherine plantagent/courtenay. after little eliz married courtenay
the title should have been given tho her husband, henry courtenay and
then upon his 1539 execution, the title then should have gone back to
the grey/talbot descent line/family. little eliz and henry had no
children.
>
> what's with the lisle title? it wasn't just for women only. little
eliz's father john held it. he died in the fall of 1504, and little
eliz inherited upon her birth in march 1505.
>
> another interesting point, when elizabeth grey-dudley died, the
title should have passed on to her eldest son, but arthur got to keep
it.
>
> also...where was arthur from the time of his birth, which i believe
to be prior to 1464, until he surfaces in 1502. was he in europe or
ireland? was he previously married? if so what happened to that
family?
>
> muriel byrne argues that many of arthur's physical accomplishments
weren't that unusual..i.e. jousting at age 40. remember john howard
d. of norfolk was well over 60 at bosworth.
>
> i have byrne's six volume set of the lisle letters..i've been
trying to find time to plough thru it too..sigh.
>
> still up past my eyes in alligators with business commitments.
> later
>
> roslyn
>
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Janet ."
> > <forevere@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would be interested if anyone has more information on this
> Arthur
> > Wayte (or Waite)
> > > since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut
> its
> > provenance.
> > >
> > > I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in
the
> > 1920's and 30's.
> > >
> > > Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if
> you
> > can help me out.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Janet T.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need
to
> > get back to the site after a PC problem over
> Christmas. "Fayrerose"
> > gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
> > There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
> > Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
> > confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
> > mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
> > Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's
uncle.
>
> Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that Arthur Wayte/Waite (the
latter
> spelling is the more usually-seen one) existed and that he was one
> of Edward IV's bastards by Elizabeth Lucy nee Waite.
>
> I just don't believe that the man who eventually became Viscount
> Lisle through his marriage to Elizabeth Grey was the same person.
> None of the milestone dates in his life jibe -- everything happens
> 20 years later than the norm.
>
> He might be the son of the Arthur Waite whose father was Edward IV.
> Or he might be a total ringer conjured up by Henry the Weasel if he
> wanted to refute the observation that he had rounded up and done
> away with all the Plantagenets he could get hold of, including
women
> and young boys.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"we" know that there was a skelton found in/near norwich that is "believed" to be eleanor talbot. but it is not confirmed/verified the bones are those of eleanor.

unless there has been further evidence/research completed "since" the r3 plaque/dedication that "does" confirm/verify the bones are certifiable as belonging to eleanor, the issue of eleanor possibly being arthur's mother remains on the table for further research and discussion.

in the 1930s, bones that were found in the tower 1674, were examined. the conclusion was that it was believed they are the remains of the princes. people are still petitioning for those bones to be re-examined using modern science to confirm or debunk the identity of those bones.

until proper modern forensic technology is used on both sets of bones (eleanor and princes), questions will remain.

what we do know is there was an arthur waite, who later became known as arthur plantagent who is acknowledged as a son of e4. the big question remains..who was his mother?

anyone know where arthur was buried? has any DNA testing been done on his remains?

i have a cousin via my mother's paternal line who descends from arthur via her maternal line, i know she'd be willing to provide a dna swab if asked.

regards
roslyn

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Where is the evidence that Arthur, Viscount Lisle, was the son of
Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, whether they were the same person
or different people? As far as I know, this is simply an assumption.
It is the assumption from that assumption that he was born in or
before 1464 that causes the date problem. If he was not the son of
Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Lucy, and there is no positive evidence
of the date of his birth either (again, as far as I know, there is
not), then he could have been born at any time up to the end of 1483
(given that Edward IV died on 9 April 1483). If he was born near the
end of Edward IV's reign, say 1480-82, the dates for his recorded
acts are about right.
>
> Ann
>
> We do know, due to forensic evidence, that Eleanor Talbot had no
children. We also have research by Peter Hammond and J.A-H confirming
the identity of Edward's mistress who had at least one child - the
future Lady Lumley, as the dispensation confirms - therefore she was
not Eleanor Talbot. Most of us believe that Arthur Waite was Edward's
natural son by the same mistress. An Arthur Waite was the ancestor of
General Monck and some sources identify them as the same man.
So he fathered children at 60? So has Douglas Hurd - I think he
exists. Des O' Connor, by the way was about 73.
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i think arthur's mother, real mother needs to be
determined. instinct is saying he is the son of eleanor talbot aka
elizabeth lucy per titilus regis. i'm still rummaging about for a
hint/lead/clue to begin verification.
>
> my theory is arthur went into hiding at the time of e4's death. he
does not surface until after all those who could have identified him
are dead. i.e. woodville; she would of known who the mothers of e4
illegits were.
>
> eliz of york takes him into her household where he plays a minor
role.
> arthur was part of that royal family. his father e4 even designed
his "badge" for him.
>
> and remember, h7 had titilus regis repealed, thereby making eliz of
york legitimate, and therefore this makes arthur, if he is the son of
talbot, an illegit as talbot's betrothal would not have been
recognised as a marriage as it had under richard iii.
>
> moore tells us, the woman e4 was betrothed to was lady lucy. her
first name elizabeth was added later if i correctly reacall..anyhow,
all copies of titilus regis are "shredded". yet, several hundrend
years later a copy that does surface says eleanor butler aka talbot
is the betrayed real wife of e4...meanwhile we are told arthur is the
son of lady lucy too.
>
> it is after h7 dies that arthur really begins to pick up "social
speed". he's h8's good ole uncle arthur, who just happens to come on
the scene about the time h8's big brother arthur dies. i have to
wonder if arthur was part of prince arthur and catherine of aragon's
household.
>
> i find it interesting that elizabeth dudley nee grey, is descendent
of elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor talbot. the d'lisle title comes
from the talbot family.
>
> elizabeth grey-dudley eventually got the lisle title back from
charles brandon. brandon had married mary tudor, younger sis of h8.
however, prior to that he had been betrothed in 1513 to another
elizabeth grey b. 1505, after the death of her mother muriel howard,
(dau of john/jock d. of norfolk.)
>
> brandon got the wardship of this child from h8, and then became
betrothed to her marry. the girl is supposed to have refused to marry
brandon..and the cad then ups and secretly marries mary tudor...and
keeps the d'lisle title. this little girl is then married to henry
courtenay, grandson to e4 by his daughter katherine. little eliz died
in 1519, and brandon continues to hold the lisle title until 1523.
>
> then along comes the almost invisible arthur who marries the aunt
eliz grey-dudley, and it is to this couple brandon hands back the
title to the grey/talbot lineage.
>
> why? the title should have been returned to little eliz when
brandon married mary tudor. the title should have been turned over to
little eliz when her wardship and marriage rights were given to
katherine plantagent/courtenay. after little eliz married courtenay
the title should have been given tho her husband, henry courtenay and
then upon his 1539 execution, the title then should have gone back to
the grey/talbot descent line/family. little eliz and henry had no
children.
>
> what's with the lisle title? it wasn't just for women only. little
eliz's father john held it. he died in the fall of 1504, and little
eliz inherited upon her birth in march 1505.
>
> another interesting point, when elizabeth grey-dudley died, the
title should have passed on to her eldest son, but arthur got to keep
it.
>
> also...where was arthur from the time of his birth, which i believe
to be prior to 1464, until he surfaces in 1502. was he in europe or
ireland? was he previously married? if so what happened to that
family?
>
> muriel byrne argues that many of arthur's physical accomplishments
weren't that unusual..i.e. jousting at age 40. remember john howard
d. of norfolk was well over 60 at bosworth.
>
> i have byrne's six volume set of the lisle letters..i've been
trying to find time to plough thru it too..sigh.
>
> still up past my eyes in alligators with business commitments.
> later
>
> roslyn
>
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Janet ."
> > <forevere@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would be interested if anyone has more information on this
> Arthur
> > Wayte (or Waite)
> > > since my maiden name is Waite and I have always wondered abiut
> its
> > provenance.
> > >
> > > I know there was a Waite involved in the Tarot - sometime in
the
> > 1920's and 30's.
> > >
> > > Since this is OT for the R III Forum, just post me directly if
> you
> > can help me out.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Janet T.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I definitely found the Waite-Monck link on Genealogics but need
to
> > get back to the site after a PC problem over
> Christmas. "Fayrerose"
> > gave me a link whenI was hunting Anne of Cleves.
> > There are also two well-known Ricardian articles (The Elusive
> > Mistress was one) and the Lumley-Conyers dispensation (Castelli,
> > confirmed by me) would seem to confirm that Richard Lord Lumley's
> > mother was Edward IV's daughter as there is no other connection.
> > Waite would be a son by the same Mistress and hence Lumley's
uncle.
>
> Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that Arthur Wayte/Waite (the
latter
> spelling is the more usually-seen one) existed and that he was one
> of Edward IV's bastards by Elizabeth Lucy nee Waite.
>
> I just don't believe that the man who eventually became Viscount
> Lisle through his marriage to Elizabeth Grey was the same person.
> None of the milestone dates in his life jibe -- everything happens
> 20 years later than the norm.
>
> He might be the son of the Arthur Waite whose father was Edward IV.
> Or he might be a total ringer conjured up by Henry the Weasel if he
> wanted to refute the observation that he had rounded up and done
> away with all the Plantagenets he could get hold of, including
women
> and young boys.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

>
> what we do know is there was an arthur waite, who later became
known as arthur plantagent who is acknowledged as a son of e4. the
big question remains..who was his mother?


Who acknowledged Arthur Waite as a son of Edward IV? As I recall,
unlike Richard, Edward did not acknowledge any of his bastards.

And even if he did, that would not give Arthur Waite the right to the
surname Plantagenet.

I still maintain that Arthur "Plantagenet" is a chimera created by
Henry the Weasel to show that he did not indulge in wholesale
extermination of the previous ruling family. Arthur P springs full-
blown upon the scene at just about the time Henry was in negotiations
with Ferdinand and Isabella over the marriage of his son Arthur to
Catherine of Aragon.

Take a look at Arthur's crest (reproduced in the Lisle Letters)...a
leopard is passing between some reeds. On one side of the reeds, its
body is light-colored with dark spots; on the other side, the colors
are reversed and it has light-colored spots on a dark pelt: a
picture of a leopard changing its spots. Visual pens and plays on
homonyms were very popular on heraldry -- crests, devices, coats of
arms --of the time.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > what we do know is there was an arthur waite, who later became
> known as arthur plantagent who is acknowledged as a son of e4. the
> big question remains..who was his mother?
>
>
> Who acknowledged Arthur Waite as a son of Edward IV? As I recall,
> unlike Richard, Edward did not acknowledge any of his bastards.
>
> And even if he did, that would not give Arthur Waite the right to
the
> surname Plantagenet.
>
> I still maintain that Arthur "Plantagenet" is a chimera created by
> Henry the Weasel to show that he did not indulge in wholesale
> extermination of the previous ruling family. Arthur P springs full-
> blown upon the scene at just about the time Henry was in
negotiations
> with Ferdinand and Isabella over the marriage of his son Arthur to
> Catherine of Aragon.
>
> Take a look at Arthur's crest (reproduced in the Lisle Letters)...a
> leopard is passing between some reeds. On one side of the reeds,
its
> body is light-colored with dark spots; on the other side, the
colors
> are reversed and it has light-colored spots on a dark pelt: a
> picture of a leopard changing its spots. Visual pens and plays on
> homonyms were very popular on heraldry -- crests, devices, coats
of
> arms --of the time.
>
> Katy
>
Henry the Weasel - I presume this refers to VII - didn't carry out or
even attempt to wipe out the real Plantagenets - there is only one
proven legitimate victim, Edward of Warwick.
Henry VIII certainly tried - Margaret of Salisbury, Montagu, Dorset,
Edward of Buckingham, Edmund of Suffolk, Lady Margaret Bulmer (nee
Stafford) and anyone who I may have forgotten - but he seems to have
failed abjectly - look how many survive today. Nevertheless, anyone
pretending to be a Plantagenet after 1509 must have had a death wish.

Please examine those two Ricardian articles again.

Roslyn, read about the Lumley-Conyers dispensation of 1489 proving
their consanguinity which can only have come through common Neville
ancestry by Richard Lord Lumley's mother being Edward IV's daughter.
Logically, Waite is far more likely than not to have had the same
mother - see the Articles.

A genet passant between two erect branches of the broome
plant, all proper.* A badge of HENRY II, a double pun on
the Plantagenet family name. The genet is a kind of
civet cat.
Encyclopedia of Novi Heraldry January 29, 1997

arthur's badge only differs from h2's with his genet being postitioned as guardant.

if you look here
http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk/arthurexhibitionthumbnails.html
at arthur's coat of arms..arthur being arthur tudor, nephew of arthur plantagenet.

note the lion of arthur tudor is positioned exactly as the genet of arthur plantagenet; i.e guardant.

From the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies.
re: Arthur Plantagenet.
Byrne suggests a date of birth between 1462 and 1464, but this seems unlikely for two reasons. First, it presupposes that Edward IV did not beget, or at any rate acknowledge, any illegitimate children after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1465. Second, a fifty-year-old uncle seems an unlikely jousting companion for the young Henry VIII in the early 1510s. The first possible reference to Arthur occurs in 1472 when ‘my Lord the Bastard’ is mentioned in the accounts of the royal household. This scrap suggests that Arthur may have been brought up in the royal nursery alongside Edward IV's legitimate children, who were born between 1466 and 1480.

therefore, there is evidence that e4 acknowledged children born prior to his marriage to woodville. and in 1472..a lord bastard is acknowledged in the household accounts.

e4's known living illegitimate son at the time was arthur, as the odnb lists him as being born before 1472.

the other e4 illegits include:
a female who married lumley, often stated as elizabeth, but quite likely was forenamed margaret.
grace who was at woodville's funeral in 1492.
mary who married henry harman
unnamed daughter m. audley or touchet.

e4 may have also sired a son referred to as peterkin by jane shore aka elizabeth lambert. she became his mistress in the 1470s.

roslyn


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>

>
> what we do know is there was an arthur waite, who later became
known as arthur plantagent who is acknowledged as a son of e4. the
big question remains..who was his mother?

Who acknowledged Arthur Waite as a son of Edward IV? As I recall,
unlike Richard, Edward did not acknowledge any of his bastards.

And even if he did, that would not give Arthur Waite the right to the
surname Plantagenet.

I still maintain that Arthur "Plantagenet" is a chimera created by
Henry the Weasel to show that he did not indulge in wholesale
extermination of the previous ruling family. Arthur P springs full-
blown upon the scene at just about the time Henry was in negotiations
with Ferdinand and Isabella over the marriage of his son Arthur to
Catherine of Aragon.

Take a look at Arthur's crest (reproduced in the Lisle Letters)...a
leopard is passing between some reeds. On one side of the reeds, its
body is light-colored with dark spots; on the other side, the colors
are reversed and it has light-colored spots on a dark pelt: a
picture of a leopard changing its spots. Visual pens and plays on
homonyms were very popular on heraldry -- crests, devices, coats of
arms --of the time.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> A genet passant between two erect branches of the broome
> plant, all proper.* A badge of HENRY II, a double pun on
> the Plantagenet family name. The genet is a kind of
> civet cat.
> Encyclopedia of Novi Heraldry January 29, 1997
>
> arthur's badge only differs from h2's with his genet being
postitioned as guardant.


Are the cat's spots and body color reversed on each half of its body?

(I'm not arguing or challenging...I'm interested.)

Katy

i'm not real clear on what you are asking.

if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able to find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.

if it is in regards to the living, and rare animal, the genet. they are light to dark brown, with dark spots. their face and ears are very foxlike. and like the broome plant considered very royal.
Ordre de la Cosse de Genet
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frorders.htm#genette

the origin of the plantagenet name and it's spin offs.
http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/pearlpoet.pdf

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> A genet passant between two erect branches of the broome
> plant, all proper.* A badge of HENRY II, a double pun on
> the Plantagenet family name. The genet is a kind of
> civet cat.
> Encyclopedia of Novi Heraldry January 29, 1997
>
> arthur's badge only differs from h2's with his genet being
postitioned as guardant.

Are the cat's spots and body color reversed on each half of its body?

(I'm not arguing or challenging...I'm interested.)

Katy

Many thanks, Roslyn. I've bookmarked it.

fayre rose wrote:
>
> i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
>
> if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able to find
> a graphic/picture, only the written description below.
>
> if it is in regards to the living, and rare animal, the genet. they
> are light to dark brown, with dark spots. their face and ears are very
> foxlike. and like the broome plant considered very royal.
> Ordre de la Cosse de Genet
> http://www.heraldic a.org/topics/ france/frorders. htm#genette
> <http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frorders.htm#genette>
>
> the origin of the plantagenet name and it's spin offs.
> http://www.plant- fhg.org.uk/ pearlpoet. pdf
> <http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/pearlpoet.pdf>
>
> oregonkaty <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
> >
> > A genet passant between two erect branches of the broome
> > plant, all proper.* A badge of HENRY II, a double pun on
> > the Plantagenet family name. The genet is a kind of
> > civet cat.
> > Encyclopedia of Novi Heraldry January 29, 1997
> >
> > arthur's badge only differs from h2's with his genet being
> postitioned as guardant.
>
> Are the cat's spots and body color reversed on each half of its body?
>
> (I'm not arguing or challenging. ..I'm interested.)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
>
> if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able to
find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.


I meant the genet (cat) on Henry II's badge.

Something else occurred to me to be curious about: how and when did
Arthur Waite get the Plantagenet surname, and on what authority.
Even if the "my Lord bastard" in the records of Edward IV's court was
young Arthur, that just emphasizes his bastardy, and even if he was
acknowledged, that does not mean he was legitimized.

Ordinarily, bastards do not have any right to their father's surname
even if he recognizes them. John of Gaunt's bastards by Kathrine
Swynford were legitimated by an act of Parliament, but that dd not
bestow the Plantagenet name on them...the surname Beaufort was
created for them.

Katy

i don't know when arthur lost the waite and became plantagenet. however, that does not really mean a lot. as surnames were only really becoming affixed at about the time arthur took the name plantagent. i've also seen genealogies listing him as york. i think arthur took the plantagenet surname to ensure people knew he was edward's son. h8 quite like arthur too.

moreover, until arthur was put in charge of calais..he was known as bumbler. i have to think of the roman emperor claudius, who in the telly program, i claudius is portrayed as a bumbler and yes man. claudius kept his head, while others around him were dropping like flies.

but back on track, surnames prior to the early/mid 1500's were flexible. one could be known by a family name, grey, a location name, ludlow or occupation name, squire, or even a descriptive name, i.e .longshanks. it is a real find when you find documents that are for the same person/property that provide the assorted surnames that individual was known by.

moreover the were no hard and fast rules for spelling. which is how you get surname variants of the same family. i.e. grai, grey, gray, greye.

legitimate children also sometimes took their mother's maiden name. there is a whole line of de grey, who became known as marmion.

i have not researched the beaufort's surname origin. it may have something to do with a title or property vs an invented name.

if you read the info/url on the plantagenet surname. you will find hamlin plantagenet was an illegit, but was still known by plantagenet. his children became known by the surname warren via the title earl warren.

the writer of the plant surname article also provides info that the surname plant is very likely a shortening of the plantagenet surname. he cites some legal references between two plant families..and a generation or so later, the same people are still in dispute, but one of the family members is now known as green.

that in itself was quite interesting as i'm tracking a green/grene/greene family who are ancestral to john green, richard's supposed tower messenger. this green family were not from the poor side of the tracks.

anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while his father was alive..and married to woodville. yikes, could you imagine the raised eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have been betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to woodville without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did not/could not acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without making his woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any woman other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.

stillington knew the truth, and it almost cost him his life a couple of times.

roslyn


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
>
> if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able to
find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.

I meant the genet (cat) on Henry II's badge.

Something else occurred to me to be curious about: how and when did
Arthur Waite get the Plantagenet surname, and on what authority.
Even if the "my Lord bastard" in the records of Edward IV's court was
young Arthur, that just emphasizes his bastardy, and even if he was
acknowledged, that does not mean he was legitimized.

Ordinarily, bastards do not have any right to their father's surname
even if he recognizes them. John of Gaunt's bastards by Kathrine
Swynford were legitimated by an act of Parliament, but that dd not
bestow the Plantagenet name on them...the surname Beaufort was
created for them.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i don't know when arthur lost the waite and became plantagenet.
however, that does not really mean a lot. as surnames were only
really becoming affixed at about the time arthur took the name
plantagent. i've also seen genealogies listing him as york. i think
arthur took the plantagenet surname to ensure people knew he was
edward's son. h8 quite like arthur too.
>
> moreover, until arthur was put in charge of calais..he was known
as bumbler. i have to think of the roman emperor claudius, who in the
telly program, i claudius is portrayed as a bumbler and yes man.
claudius kept his head, while others around him were dropping like
flies.
>
> but back on track, surnames prior to the early/mid 1500's were
flexible. one could be known by a family name, grey, a location name,
ludlow or occupation name, squire, or even a descriptive name,
i.e .longshanks. it is a real find when you find documents that are
for the same person/property that provide the assorted surnames that
individual was known by.
>
> moreover the were no hard and fast rules for spelling. which is
how you get surname variants of the same family. i.e. grai, grey,
gray, greye.
>
> legitimate children also sometimes took their mother's maiden
name. there is a whole line of de grey, who became known as marmion.
>
> i have not researched the beaufort's surname origin. it may have
something to do with a title or property vs an invented name.
>
> if you read the info/url on the plantagenet surname. you will
find hamlin plantagenet was an illegit, but was still known by
plantagenet. his children became known by the surname warren via the
title earl warren.
>
> the writer of the plant surname article also provides info that
the surname plant is very likely a shortening of the plantagenet
surname. he cites some legal references between two plant
families..and a generation or so later, the same people are still in
dispute, but one of the family members is now known as green.
>
> that in itself was quite interesting as i'm tracking a
green/grene/greene family who are ancestral to john green, richard's
supposed tower messenger. this green family were not from the poor
side of the tracks.
>
> anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while his
father was alive..and married to woodville. yikes, could you imagine
the raised eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have
been betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to
woodville without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did
not/could not acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without making
his woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any woman
other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.
>
> stillington knew the truth, and it almost cost him his life a
couple of times.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
> >
> > if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able to
> find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.
>
> I meant the genet (cat) on Henry II's badge.
>
> Something else occurred to me to be curious about: how and when did
> Arthur Waite get the Plantagenet surname, and on what authority.
> Even if the "my Lord bastard" in the records of Edward IV's court
was
> young Arthur, that just emphasizes his bastardy, and even if he was
> acknowledged, that does not mean he was legitimized.
>
> Ordinarily, bastards do not have any right to their father's
surname
> even if he recognizes them. John of Gaunt's bastards by Kathrine
> Swynford were legitimated by an act of Parliament, but that dd not
> bestow the Plantagenet name on them...the surname Beaufort was
> created for them.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Roslyn, could you e-mail me a connection to van der Pas' Genealogics
again? I had to clean up my PC over Christmas.
PS The E4-Lisle-Monck connection was on there and I plan to "do" the
Sitwells next.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
brevity snip
> >
> Roslyn, could you e-mail me a connection to van der Pas' Genealogics
> again? I had to clean up my PC over Christmas.
> PS The E4-Lisle-Monck connection was on there and I plan to "do" the
> Sitwells next.
>
http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

There was no single practice for giving surnames to aristocratic bastards in the 15th century. As far as I can see, if a bastard was acknowledged by his natural father, the father would also give him a surname. This might be the father's own surname but not necessarily. My understanding is that Beaufort was an estate John of Gaunt held in France - presumably he intended his Beaufort issue to have it. In other cases the bastard used his father's peerage name as a surname. So the bastard son of Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset, was Charles Somerset, and the son of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, brother of Henry V, was John Clarence. Others got their names from their birthplaces - Roger de Clarendon, bastard son of the Black Prince.

Arthur 'Plantagenet' might indicate that Edward IV acknowledged him. Or perhaps, with the legitimate Plantagenet male line extinguished, young Arthur simply started calling himself Plantagenet.

Ann

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i don't know when arthur lost the waite and became plantagenet.
> however, that does not really mean a lot. as surnames were only
> really becoming affixed at about the time arthur took the name
> plantagent. i've also seen genealogies listing him as york. i think
> arthur took the plantagenet surname to ensure people knew he was
> edward's son. h8 quite like arthur too.

Katy does have a point in that all the markers of Arthur's life ARE
20 years too late for the time he is conventionally said to have been
born - ie the early 1460s when Lady Lucy was Edward's mistress.
However, I understand that he himself never claimed to be Lady Lucy's
son, only the son of Edward IV. When he was young he called himself
Waite, and he had Waite relatives in Hampshire with whom he
corresponded.
There actually is no record of a Waite woman marrying a Lucy. John
Ashdown-Hill has 'identified' her but sadly he's done it by adding an
invented Elizabeth to the tree of a known Hampshire Waite family and
hypothesising that this hypothetical Elizabeth married Sir William
Lucy of Charlcote, Warwickshire. Apart from anything else, the gentry
classes tended to marry within their county, or from a county next
door. It just doesn't convince me.
Apparently Lady Lucy's daughter, the future Lady Lumley, was called
Margaret, not Elizabeth as stated in later histories, and it's very
likely that she had her mother's name. I'm afraid to say I'm with
Michael Hicks on this one. I believe that Edward's Lady Lucy was
probably Margaret, wife of Sir William Lucy of Dallington in
Northamptonshire. Her mother was a Montagu, and Warwick was her first
cousin (her father was one of Anne Montagu's first two husbands,
either Hankeford or FitzLewis). The Duke of Exeter (divorced by
Edward's sister) was her step-brother. Sexually, she had a bit of a
reputation. Her husband was deliberately killed by her lover at the
battle of Northampton. Then her lover, whom she may have married, was
killed at Towton. She was deprived of her lands and went to live in
Warwick's household. She sued to Edward for her lands in the same
fashion as Eleanor Butler and Elizabeth Woodville. Two or three years
pass - long enough to have had a child by the king - then she starts
more local liaisons. She started a relationship with a lawyer, but
dropped him under pressure from her family; he claimed they had
already exchanged vows and took his case to Rome. Meanwhile, Lady
Lucy went off and 'married' someone else by whom she had another
child. She died in 1466 or 1467, I think by this time she was back
living with her brother. She seems an ideal candidate.

So in a nutshell I don't believe Lady Lucy was a Waite, and I don't
believe Arthur's Waite mother was Lady Lucy. That overcomes all the
problems because the affair with the more obscure Waite woman could
have taken place any time during Edward's reign.
Because of his Waite surname and the fact that his life markers point
to a birth-date around 1480, or even later, I don't believe he can
have been Eleanor Butler's son. I don't, in any case, believe that
Richard would have used the precontract story without first
satisfying himself that Eleanor had not given Edward a son. If John
Ashdown-Hill's skeleton from the Norwich Carmelites turns out on DNA
analysis to be Eleanor's then that will prove it, as owner of said
skeleton had never borne children.

I do suspect Arthur genuinely was Edward's son. After all, the Waites
were pretty obscure, yet he was taken into Elizabeth of York's
household, then married into the aristocracy, and ended his days in
the Tower over very little. He seems to have been physically very
like Edward IV and Henry VIII, although we have no portrait of him -
Henry VIII was able to send him one of his own suits of armour to
wear, for instance. He also had many of Edward IV's better traits,
such as his his easy-going affability.

Marie











> >
> > moreover, until arthur was put in charge of calais..he was
known
> as bumbler. i have to think of the roman emperor claudius, who in
the
> telly program, i claudius is portrayed as a bumbler and yes man.
> claudius kept his head, while others around him were dropping like
> flies.
> >
> > but back on track, surnames prior to the early/mid 1500's were
> flexible. one could be known by a family name, grey, a location
name,
> ludlow or occupation name, squire, or even a descriptive name,
> i.e .longshanks. it is a real find when you find documents that are
> for the same person/property that provide the assorted surnames
that
> individual was known by.
> >
> > moreover the were no hard and fast rules for spelling. which is
> how you get surname variants of the same family. i.e. grai, grey,
> gray, greye.
> >
> > legitimate children also sometimes took their mother's maiden
> name. there is a whole line of de grey, who became known as marmion.
> >
> > i have not researched the beaufort's surname origin. it may
have
> something to do with a title or property vs an invented name.
> >
> > if you read the info/url on the plantagenet surname. you will
> find hamlin plantagenet was an illegit, but was still known by
> plantagenet. his children became known by the surname warren via
the
> title earl warren.
> >
> > the writer of the plant surname article also provides info that
> the surname plant is very likely a shortening of the plantagenet
> surname. he cites some legal references between two plant
> families..and a generation or so later, the same people are still
in
> dispute, but one of the family members is now known as green.
> >
> > that in itself was quite interesting as i'm tracking a
> green/grene/greene family who are ancestral to john green,
richard's
> supposed tower messenger. this green family were not from the poor
> side of the tracks.
> >
> > anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while his
> father was alive..and married to woodville. yikes, could you
imagine
> the raised eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have
> been betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to
> woodville without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did
> not/could not acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without making
> his woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any
woman
> other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.
> >
> > stillington knew the truth, and it almost cost him his life a
> couple of times.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> > oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> > --- In , fayre
rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
> > >
> > > if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not able
to
> > find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.
> >
> > I meant the genet (cat) on Henry II's badge.
> >
> > Something else occurred to me to be curious about: how and when
did
> > Arthur Waite get the Plantagenet surname, and on what authority.
> > Even if the "my Lord bastard" in the records of Edward IV's court
> was
> > young Arthur, that just emphasizes his bastardy, and even if he
was
> > acknowledged, that does not mean he was legitimized.
> >
> > Ordinarily, bastards do not have any right to their father's
> surname
> > even if he recognizes them. John of Gaunt's bastards by Kathrine
> > Swynford were legitimated by an act of Parliament, but that dd
not
> > bestow the Plantagenet name on them...the surname Beaufort was
> > created for them.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Roslyn, could you e-mail me a connection to van der Pas'
Genealogics
> again? I had to clean up my PC over Christmas.
> PS The E4-Lisle-Monck connection was on there and I plan to "do"
the
> Sitwells next.
>

i think we have to disagree on arthur's ability to participate
in "life events" because of his age.

even in our modern, less physically fit day and age, people 50+ are
participating in young people's sports/contests. being a couch potato
wasn't really an option for men in the late medieval era.

your personna was based on your verility and ability to compete. the
only excuses were infirmity by injury or illness.

bishop, john russell b. circa 1420 (age 60, give or take a few years)
begged off on personally because of illness in delivering the great
seal to richard at the time of buckingham's rebellion. russell died
in 1494, but he was also richard's 1484 spreaker of the house and
chancellor of england. if being "old" was an excuse not to
participate or travel, then why did richard request that russell
deliver the seal, or why did russell need to reply he was ill and
unable to deliver the seal himself?

russell continued to travel even after 1484. queen eleanor
d'aquitaine was in her 80's when she travelled to escort her
grandaughter from spain to france.

the people of this era, if they survived childhood, pestilence, wars
and politics were healthy and active.

consider the ages of some of the players at bosworth.
h7's step father, thomas stanley was about age 50 when he betrayed
richard at bosworth.

john howard was 60+

baron ferrers of chartley, walter devereaux was 53 when he died at
bosworth.

george lumley, aged 40 or more at his father's death april 1, 1485.

the list can go on and on of those who were warriors aged 40 or more.

jousting while a dangerous sport, was not nearly as dangerous as the
battle field.

consider how long a list would be for men who married a
first/second/third or more time after age 50 and fathered children in
this era.

even mary tudor was kept confined after the elderly king of france
died, to ensure she was not pregnant, and if she was with child, then
only the king could be the sire.

at this time, there are 3 possible illegit sons of e4. arthur,
peterkin and edward of wigmore.

edward of wigmore is supposed to have died at the same time as his
alleged mother, eleanor talbot in 1468. wigmore is a mortimer estate.
e4 is of mortimer descent. it is debated if edward of wigmore existed
at all. peterkin is another "ghost" child. we do know arthur
definitely walked the planet...and the "my lord bastard" in 1472 had
clothing bought for him.

in vol. 6 of muriel byrne's lisle letters is an illustration of
arthur in the procession of the knights of the garter. he is the
tallest of the men represented, and fully bearded, indicating an
older fair haired man.

as for margaret fitzlewis aka johan or hankeford being the mysterious
lady elizabeth lucy, you are bang on. there are records saying she is
the daughter of john/johan lewis. hankeford would be her stepfather.

william lucy b. 1404, married more than once. his wife before
margaret fitzlewis aka johan, was elizabeth percy d. 1455.

he then married margaret fitzlewis before he died at the battle of
northampton in 1460 at age 56. this lady lucy died in 1466. moreover
she had a bit of reputation for flitting from lover to lover.

ergo, the lady elizabeth lucy, nee percy who d. 1455 was possibly put
forward as "noble" wife of old bill by "historians" of the tudor and
later eras. percy was certainly a more recognised name than
fitzlewis, johan or hankefort..and all of the possible surnames of
rumoured and legitimate husbands of margaret, the real lady lucy of
richard iii fame.

quite simply, someone took the easy way out when lady lucy
was "identified" as the woman of the precontract by thomas moore, and
the mother of one or more of e4's illegits...

moore's lady lucy has confounded researchers for centuries, but there
she is..margaret fitzlewis aka johan stepdaughter of hankefort.

we know via the surviving copy of titilus regis, the real woman,
named in the precontract was eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot,
daughter of the earl of shrewsbury.

we know e4 admitted to having illegits prior to his marriage to
woodville.

myself, i'm left wondering if the shortlived and unconfirmed edward
of wigmore is aka arthur. it is convenient that wigmore died the same
year as his reputed mother, eleanor talbot.

also, arthur's surname waite/wayte has played a tiny game in my mind.
a pun perhaps as in:..no..arthur! wait! wait until those who know or
could harm you have passed on. so arthur did wait, and he became
arthur waite/wayte/plantagenet/york. who knows, eventually research
will resolve arthur's ancestry.

regards
roslyn



--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i don't know when arthur lost the waite and became plantagenet.
> > however, that does not really mean a lot. as surnames were only
> > really becoming affixed at about the time arthur took the name
> > plantagent. i've also seen genealogies listing him as york. i
think
> > arthur took the plantagenet surname to ensure people knew he was
> > edward's son. h8 quite like arthur too.
>
> Katy does have a point in that all the markers of Arthur's life ARE
> 20 years too late for the time he is conventionally said to have
been
> born - ie the early 1460s when Lady Lucy was Edward's mistress.
> However, I understand that he himself never claimed to be Lady
Lucy's
> son, only the son of Edward IV. When he was young he called himself
> Waite, and he had Waite relatives in Hampshire with whom he
> corresponded.
> There actually is no record of a Waite woman marrying a Lucy. John
> Ashdown-Hill has 'identified' her but sadly he's done it by adding
an
> invented Elizabeth to the tree of a known Hampshire Waite family
and
> hypothesising that this hypothetical Elizabeth married Sir William
> Lucy of Charlcote, Warwickshire. Apart from anything else, the
gentry
> classes tended to marry within their county, or from a county next
> door. It just doesn't convince me.
> Apparently Lady Lucy's daughter, the future Lady Lumley, was
called
> Margaret, not Elizabeth as stated in later histories, and it's very
> likely that she had her mother's name. I'm afraid to say I'm with
> Michael Hicks on this one. I believe that Edward's Lady Lucy was
> probably Margaret, wife of Sir William Lucy of Dallington in
> Northamptonshire. Her mother was a Montagu, and Warwick was her
first
> cousin (her father was one of Anne Montagu's first two husbands,
> either Hankeford or FitzLewis). The Duke of Exeter (divorced by
> Edward's sister) was her step-brother. Sexually, she had a bit of a
> reputation. Her husband was deliberately killed by her lover at the
> battle of Northampton. Then her lover, whom she may have married,
was
> killed at Towton. She was deprived of her lands and went to live in
> Warwick's household. She sued to Edward for her lands in the same
> fashion as Eleanor Butler and Elizabeth Woodville. Two or three
years
> pass - long enough to have had a child by the king - then she
starts
> more local liaisons. She started a relationship with a lawyer, but
> dropped him under pressure from her family; he claimed they had
> already exchanged vows and took his case to Rome. Meanwhile, Lady
> Lucy went off and 'married' someone else by whom she had another
> child. She died in 1466 or 1467, I think by this time she was back
> living with her brother. She seems an ideal candidate.
>
> So in a nutshell I don't believe Lady Lucy was a Waite, and I don't
> believe Arthur's Waite mother was Lady Lucy. That overcomes all the
> problems because the affair with the more obscure Waite woman could
> have taken place any time during Edward's reign.
> Because of his Waite surname and the fact that his life markers
point
> to a birth-date around 1480, or even later, I don't believe he can
> have been Eleanor Butler's son. I don't, in any case, believe that
> Richard would have used the precontract story without first
> satisfying himself that Eleanor had not given Edward a son. If John
> Ashdown-Hill's skeleton from the Norwich Carmelites turns out on
DNA
> analysis to be Eleanor's then that will prove it, as owner of said
> skeleton had never borne children.
>
> I do suspect Arthur genuinely was Edward's son. After all, the
Waites
> were pretty obscure, yet he was taken into Elizabeth of York's
> household, then married into the aristocracy, and ended his days in
> the Tower over very little. He seems to have been physically very
> like Edward IV and Henry VIII, although we have no portrait of him -

> Henry VIII was able to send him one of his own suits of armour to
> wear, for instance. He also had many of Edward IV's better traits,
> such as his his easy-going affability.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > moreover, until arthur was put in charge of calais..he was
> known
> > as bumbler. i have to think of the roman emperor claudius, who in
> the
> > telly program, i claudius is portrayed as a bumbler and yes man.
> > claudius kept his head, while others around him were dropping
like
> > flies.
> > >
> > > but back on track, surnames prior to the early/mid 1500's
were
> > flexible. one could be known by a family name, grey, a location
> name,
> > ludlow or occupation name, squire, or even a descriptive name,
> > i.e .longshanks. it is a real find when you find documents that
are
> > for the same person/property that provide the assorted surnames
> that
> > individual was known by.
> > >
> > > moreover the were no hard and fast rules for spelling. which
is
> > how you get surname variants of the same family. i.e. grai, grey,
> > gray, greye.
> > >
> > > legitimate children also sometimes took their mother's maiden
> > name. there is a whole line of de grey, who became known as
marmion.
> > >
> > > i have not researched the beaufort's surname origin. it may
> have
> > something to do with a title or property vs an invented name.
> > >
> > > if you read the info/url on the plantagenet surname. you will
> > find hamlin plantagenet was an illegit, but was still known by
> > plantagenet. his children became known by the surname warren via
> the
> > title earl warren.
> > >
> > > the writer of the plant surname article also provides info
that
> > the surname plant is very likely a shortening of the plantagenet
> > surname. he cites some legal references between two plant
> > families..and a generation or so later, the same people are still
> in
> > dispute, but one of the family members is now known as green.
> > >
> > > that in itself was quite interesting as i'm tracking a
> > green/grene/greene family who are ancestral to john green,
> richard's
> > supposed tower messenger. this green family were not from the
poor
> > side of the tracks.
> > >
> > > anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while
his
> > father was alive..and married to woodville. yikes, could you
> imagine
> > the raised eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have
> > been betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to
> > woodville without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did
> > not/could not acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without
making
> > his woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any
> woman
> > other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.
> > >
> > > stillington knew the truth, and it almost cost him his life a
> > couple of times.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > >
> > > oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > --- In , fayre
> rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i'm not real clear on what you are asking.
> > > >
> > > > if it is in regards to h2's genet. i don't know. i've not
able
> to
> > > find a graphic/picture, only the written description below.
> > >
> > > I meant the genet (cat) on Henry II's badge.
> > >
> > > Something else occurred to me to be curious about: how and when
> did
> > > Arthur Waite get the Plantagenet surname, and on what
authority.
> > > Even if the "my Lord bastard" in the records of Edward IV's
court
> > was
> > > young Arthur, that just emphasizes his bastardy, and even if he
> was
> > > acknowledged, that does not mean he was legitimized.
> > >
> > > Ordinarily, bastards do not have any right to their father's
> > surname
> > > even if he recognizes them. John of Gaunt's bastards by
Kathrine
> > > Swynford were legitimated by an act of Parliament, but that dd
> not
> > > bestow the Plantagenet name on them...the surname Beaufort was
> > > created for them.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Roslyn, could you e-mail me a connection to van der Pas'
> Genealogics
> > again? I had to clean up my PC over Christmas.
> > PS The E4-Lisle-Monck connection was on there and I plan to "do"
> the
> > Sitwells next.
> >
>

--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> brevity snip
> > >
> > Roslyn, could you e-mail me a connection to van der Pas'
Genealogics
> > again? I had to clean up my PC over Christmas.
> > PS The E4-Lisle-Monck connection was on there and I plan to "do"
the
> > Sitwells next.
> >
> http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
>
Thankyou. Watch this space!

--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think we have to disagree on arthur's ability to participate
> in "life events" because of his age.
>
> even in our modern, less physically fit day and age, people 50+ are
> participating in young people's sports/contests. being a couch potato
> wasn't really an option for men in the late medieval era.


What I meant by the milestones of his life (and I believe it's what
Marie meant, too, since she was writing in reference to an earlier post
of mine) was the agr at which he became attached to the household of a
patron, the age at which he was knighted, his age upon his first
marriage, and the ages at which he was appointed to various posts and
duties during his career.

Men of quite advanced years participated in jousts and tourneys --
William Marshal was winning them when he was past 50 -- and wars. We
all know about John Duke of Norfolk -- Jockey of Norfolk -- who was
leading Henry VIII's army as a near septuagenarian.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i think we have to disagree on arthur's ability to participate
> > in "life events" because of his age.
> >
> > even in our modern, less physically fit day and age, people 50+
are
> > participating in young people's sports/contests. being a couch
potato
> > wasn't really an option for men in the late medieval era.
>
>
> What I meant by the milestones of his life (and I believe it's what
> Marie meant, too, since she was writing in reference to an earlier
post
> of mine) was the agr at which he became attached to the household
of a
> patron, the age at which he was knighted, his age upon his first
> marriage, and the ages at which he was appointed to various posts
and
> duties during his career.
>
> Men of quite advanced years participated in jousts and tourneys --
> William Marshal was winning them when he was past 50 -- and wars.
We
> all know about John Duke of Norfolk -- Jockey of Norfolk -- who was
> leading Henry VIII's army as a near septuagenarian.
>
> Katy

Thanks Katy, that's exactly what I meant. It's a matter of
probabilities. If Arthur was born in the early 1460s, then he started
his career 20 years later than one would expect, married for the
first time aged nearly fifty, had a career which peaked in his 70s,
and was arrested and send to the Tower whilst still in active
service, aged nearly eighty. None of these is impossible, but adding
different less-than-likely events together multiplies rather than
adds the level of improbability. To throw a 6 at dice once you have a
chance of 1 in 6. To throw two sixes in a row the probability drops
to 1 in 36; three sixes in a row, 1 in 216. The chance of Arthur
doing everything in his life so much later than the norm would be
very small indeed.
Thanks for the support on Lady Margaret, though, Roslyn. It's good to
know someone else is convinced of this. I say she was either
FitzLewis or Hankeford because, though she's usually said to have
been the daughter of Lewis John, Anne Montagu's second husband, the
Salisbury Roll shows her as the daughter of husband no 1, Richard
Hankeford. I'm not sure I trust this as proof, though. The Roll shows
all the daughters as belonging to the first marriage, and all the
sons to the second. Also Margaret was particularly close to one of
her FitzLewis brothers.
Although she had an obscure surname, her connections were very high.
Her maternal grandfather was an earl of Salisbury. Warwick the
Kingmaker was her cousin and apparently a family friend. She had two
successive duke of Exeter as step-father and step-brother, and said
stepbrother was married to Edward IV's sister. As mentioned above,
she even merited a place on the Salisbury Roll. She would have had
ample opportunity to bringing herself to the attention of Edward IV.

>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> Apparently Lady Lucy's daughter, the future Lady Lumley, was
called
> Margaret, not Elizabeth as stated in later histories, and it's very
> likely that she had her mother's name. I'm afraid to say I'm with
> Michael Hicks on this one. I believe that Edward's Lady Lucy was
> probably Margaret, wife of Sir William Lucy of Dallington in
> Northamptonshire. Her mother was a Montagu, and Warwick was her
first
> cousin (her father was one of Anne Montagu's first two husbands,
> either Hankeford or FitzLewis). The Duke of Exeter (divorced by
> Edward's sister) was her step-brother. Sexually, she had a bit of a
> reputation. Her husband was deliberately killed by her lover at the
> battle of Northampton. Then her lover, whom she may have married,
was
> killed at Towton. She was deprived of her lands and went to live in
> Warwick's household. She sued to Edward for her lands in the same
> fashion as Eleanor Butler and Elizabeth Woodville. Two or three
years
> pass - long enough to have had a child by the king - then she
starts
> more local liaisons. She started a relationship with a lawyer, but
> dropped him under pressure from her family; he claimed they had
> already exchanged vows and took his case to Rome. Meanwhile, Lady
> Lucy went off and 'married' someone else by whom she had another
> child. She died in 1466 or 1467, I think by this time she was back
> living with her brother. She seems an ideal candidate.


Do you suppose, then, that perhaps the illegitimate daughter of
Edward IV's named Elizabeth, and Elizabeth Lucy who was supposedly
one of his mistresses, were one and the same? I don't mean that he
made a mistress of his own daughter, but rather that the names have
been confused and blurred together, producing a mistress named
Elizabeth Lucy who didn't exist who was actually Margaret Lucy,
mother of the Elizabeth Lucy who was Edward's child.


> So in a nutshell I don't believe Lady Lucy was a Waite, and I don't
> believe Arthur's Waite mother was Lady Lucy. That overcomes all the
> problems because the affair with the more obscure Waite woman could
> have taken place any time during Edward's reign.

So we still need to find Arthur's Waite mother...and that is made
more difficult because Waite may have been her maiden name, if she
was a widow, and she may have been known under her married name,
which the illegitimate son of another man probably would not have
borne.

Katy

here's a contempory of arthur b. circa 1460...ralph le scope

note the dates of his life events..and his unknown marriage to e4's daughter cecily, evidence posted below the complete peerage write-up.

BARONY OF SCROPE OF MASHAM

IX. 9. RALPH (LE SCROPE), LORD SCROPE (of Masham, or of Upsall), brother and heir. He, as patron, presented a chaplain to the chantry of the B.V.M. at Long Benton, Northumberland who was instituted, 28 August 1496; received the King's pardon, 6 December 1485, and again 20 May 1509; knighted by Surrey after the battle of Flodden, 9 September 1513. He was summoned to Parliament 23 November 1514. He married Eleanor, daughter of Andrew (WINDSOR), 1st LORD WINDSOR (of Stanwell), by Elizabeth, 1st sister and coheir (1475) of Edward (BLOUNT), LORD MOUNTJOY, daughter of Sir William BLOUNT. He died s.p. 17 September 1515, and was buried in Rievaulx Abbey, co. York. His widow married, before 6 April 1529, Sir Edward NEVILL, of Addington Park, Kent, 3rd son of George (NEVILL), 4th LORD ABERGAVENNY, which Edward was attainted of high treason, 4 December (1538), and beheaded 9 January 1538/9. She died before 25 March 1531. [CP 11:574]

ralph's parents were elizabeth greystoke b. 1436 and thomas scrope b. circa 1430.
ralph was born circa 1460.

Date: 30 Sep 2003 11:58:23 -0700
- - - - -
Polydore Vergil stated in his history of the reign of King Richard III
that just prior to overthrowing King Richard III, while still in
France, Henry Tudor [future Henry VII] received rumor that King
Richard III had married his [i.e., Richard's] niece, Cecily
Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward IV, to an "obscure man." An
exact quote from Vergil reads as follows:
"Henry [Tudor]… he departyd to Roan [Rouen]. While he taryed here,
and riggyd his navy at the mouth of Seyne, a rumor came unto his eare
that king Richard, his wife being dead, was amyndyd to mary Elizabeth,
his brother Edwardes dowghter, and that he had maryed Cecyly, Edwards
other daughter, unto an obscure man of no reputation." [Reference:
Henry Ellis, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History (Camden
Soc. 29) (1844): 215].
Alison Weir makes reference to this passage in Vergil in her book, The
Princes in the Tower (1992), pg. 206, where she states:
"… Vergil states that when Henry Tudor, in France, learned what was
afoot, … [he] was even more downcast when he heard that Richard
proposed to marry Elizabeth's sister Cecily to an unknown knight so
that Henry should be baulked of yet another Yorkist princess." END OF
QUOTE.
Since Vergil first reported the "rumor" of Cecily Plantagenet's
marriage to an "obscure man," historians and genealogists have largely
ignored Cecily Plantagenet's possible first marriage. Recent
scholarly research indicates, however, that King Richard III did in
fact marry Cecily Plantagenet to someone as alleged by Vergil in his
history. The correction volume to the Complete Peerage series, volume
14 (1998), pg. 626 (sub Welles) states that Cecily Plantagenet married
" .... sometime after June 1482, probably after the accession of
Richard III" to "Ralph Scrope of Upsall, brother of Thomas Lord Scrope
of Upsall. This marriage was dissolved in 1486." END OF QUOTE.
The source cited by C.P. 14 for this information is Rosemary Horrox,
Richard III, A Study in Service, 1989, pg. 295.
This past week I had a chance to examine Rosemary Horrox's work and
she mentions Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope in passing
in her book on the page cited by C.P. 14. In a footnote, however,
Horrox in turn cites as her source for this marriage two other works:
R.H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (1974): 160,
note 89; and S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 35–36.
I've since examined both the work by Helmholz and the work by Chrimes
which are cited by Horrox. Chrimes states that all of King Edward
IV's daughters were unmarried in 1485, and, in a footnote, he lists
all of these daughters by name and gives particulars of their lives
and marriages. He includes Cecily in this list but he does not
mention any marriage to Ralph Scrope.
As for Helmholz, on pages 160-161, he includes a long discussion
regarding the lack of surviving divorce reccords in medieval England
for gentry and nobility, which discussion reads as follows:

"The absence of litigants of the upper classes is also worthy of note.
It is fairly certain that the cases where the record gives no
occupation for the parties did not involve people of higher standing.
We can infer this because when they did appear, their status was
specifically identified. Their title was given, they were
specifically styled dominus, or the fact of their lordship of a manor
was recorded. Several examples appears in the Cause papers at York
[see Footnote 89]. In fact, the York records and the
thirteenth-century Canterbury sede vacante material produce almost all
the litigants of the upper classes that we have. In other dioceses,
few or no persons of any rank appear [see Footnote 90]. This may seem
strange. We usually think it was the upper classes which made most
liberal use of marriage law, especially in suits for divorce. The
most likely explanation for their absence from our records is that the
gentry and nobility usually brought their disputes directly to the
bishop, to be heard by him in person or in his court of audience …
Also there is reference to marriage cases involving upper class
families in most Episcopal registers. This again suggests that these
people went directly to the bishop. Perhaps greater privacy was thus
available." END OF QUOTE.
Below the discussion above are two footnotes numbered 89 and 90 which
read as follows:
Footnote 89: "York Consistory Act Book, vol. 4, f. 88r (1486) is a
suit between ‘preclara ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet
contra Radulphum Scrope de Upsall." Other examples of upper class
litigants: York C.P. E 12/1 (1323); C.P. E 46 (1340); C.P. E 179
(1390); C.P. E 259 (1368-9); Canterbury Ecc. Suit, no. 203 (1294); no.
219 (1301); no. 297 (1293).
Footnote 90: "An exception is Lichfield B/C/1/1, f. 270r (1469),
where a litigant was styled armiger."
While Mr. Helmholz makes no effort to identify Lady Cecily
Plantagenet, it is obvious that she was in fact King Edward IV's
daughter and that she was married by King Richard III as alleged in
Vergil's history to someone below her station.
C.P. 14 dates Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope as having
taken place "sometime after June 1482." The June 1482 date appears to
be derived from the first of three documents found in Foedera, by
Thomas Rymer, as follows:
l. Agreement dated 11 June 1482 between King Edward IV and Alexander
Stewart, Duke of Albany, contains provision that if Alexander can make
himself "clere from all other Women," that within the following year
King Edward shall "gyf my Lady Cecille his Douchter on the said
Alexander" [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727): 156–157].
2. Document dated 4 Aug. 1482 regarding proposed marriage of the
"Ritht Noble Princes Cecile" and James, first born son of King James
III of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727): 161-162].
3. Document dated 12 Oct. 1482, whereby King Edward IV utterly rejects
the proposed marriage between his daughter, "Cicile," and James, son
of James, King of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727):
165-166].
We see that Cecily Plantagenet was definitely unmarried as late as 12
October 1482, when her father, King Edward IV, "utterly" rejected a
proposal of marriage for her and the son of the King of Scotland. As
noted above, Chrimes' states that all of King Edward IV's daughters
(including Cecily) were unmarried in 1485. As such, the marriage of
Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope must have occurred after 12
October 1482 and probably sometime in 1485, just before Henry Tudor
invaded England and defeated and killed King Richard III as the Battle
of Bosworth 22 August 1485.
As for the identity of Ralph Scrope of Upsall, he is doubtless the
same individual as Ralph Scrope of Masham (or Upsall), 3rd son of
Thomas Scrope, 5th Lord Scrope of Masham (died 1475), by his wife,
Elizabeth de Greystoke. On his brother, Henry's death without issue
in 1512, he succeeded as 9th Lord Scrope of Masham (or Upsall)
[Reference: C.P. 11 (1949): 571-572 (sub Scrope)]. While hardly from
an obscure family, being the younger landless son of a deceased baron,
Ralph Scrope was surely much below Cecily Plantagenet's station.
Curiously, C.P. 14 makes no mention of Ralph Scrope's brief marriage
to Cecily Plantagenet under its listing of corrections and additions
for the Scrope family.
I find that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were blood related as
follows:
John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster
/
Robert Ferrers = (1) Joan Beaufort (2) = Ralph Neville
__________/ _____/
/ /
Elizabeth Ferrers Cecily Neville
=John Greystoke =Richard, Duke of York
/ /
Ralph Greystoke King Edward IV of England
= Elizabeth Fitz Hugh =Elizabeth Wydeville
/ /
Elizabeth Greystoke /
=Thomas Scrope /
/ /
Ralph Scrope married Cecily Plantagenet
The above chart shows that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were
related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of kindred, being both descended
from Joan (or Jane) Beaufort, the legitimated daughter of John of
Gaunt. If so, a dispensation would have been required for this
marriage. I haven't yet checked for such a dispensation, and, if one
knows of its existence, I would appreciate knowing about it.
In summary, it appears that Cecily Plantagenet married sometime in
1485 to Ralph Scrope of Upsall. The marriage was evidently brief and
childless. It was dissolved sometime in 1486. Mr. Helmholz deserves
much credit for the discovery of the divorce record pertaining to this
marriage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

delayed life events are not impossible, as are yet to be found first or other marriages.
don't rule eleanor talbot out as arthur's mother...until it can be verified or debunked..somewhere is that scrap of paper that will provide the lead/clue to prove/disprove arthur's ancestry.
roslyn



oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think we have to disagree on arthur's ability to participate
> in "life events" because of his age.
>
> even in our modern, less physically fit day and age, people 50+ are
> participating in young people's sports/contests. being a couch potato
> wasn't really an option for men in the late medieval era.

What I meant by the milestones of his life (and I believe it's what
Marie meant, too, since she was writing in reference to an earlier post
of mine) was the agr at which he became attached to the household of a
patron, the age at which he was knighted, his age upon his first
marriage, and the ages at which he was appointed to various posts and
duties during his career.

Men of quite advanced years participated in jousts and tourneys --
William Marshal was winning them when he was past 50 -- and wars. We
all know about John Duke of Norfolk -- Jockey of Norfolk -- who was
leading Henry VIII's army as a near septuagenarian.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>> anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while his
father was alive..

I don't think we can conflate the two -- conclude that "my Lord
bastard" mentioned in the rolls and Arthur were one and the same.





and married to woodville. yikes, could you imagine the raised
eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have been
betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to woodville
without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did not/could not
acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without making his
woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any woman
other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.


But, but...the precontract" with Eleanor Butler was called that
because it was prior to -- "pre" -- Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville, not because there was some sort of arrangement or ceremony
called a precontract that was a shade less binding that a marriage
but more binding than an "I'll still respect you tomorrow, I
promise". Edward's union with Eleanor was probably no less binding
than the one he had with Elizabeth Woodville. (And no more so...his
marriage to Woodville was improper for several reasons, such as being
done in secret without the proper witnesses, but that did not
invalidate it -- it was invalid because he was already married to
Talbot who was still living at the time.)

So if Arthur had been born to Eleanor Talbot after the (marriage)
contract with Edward, then he would have been legitimate, Edward's
first-born son, and his legal heir, wouldn't he? And that would
really have been a complication to everything else that later
transpired.

Katy

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>> anyhow..as for arthur being known as my lord bastard while his
father was alive..

I don't think we can conflate the two -- conclude that "my Lord
bastard" mentioned in the rolls and Arthur were one and the same.

and married to woodville. yikes, could you imagine the raised
eyebrows and political caos if e4 had admitted to have been
betrothed/married to talbot or any other woman prior to woodville
without a formal annullment...plain and simple e4 did not/could not
acknowledge his betrothal to any woman without making his
woodville "get" illegitimate... ergo..any child born to any woman
other than woodville was just one e4's bastards.

But, but...the precontract" with Eleanor Butler was called that
because it was prior to -- "pre" -- Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville, not because there was some sort of arrangement or ceremony
called a precontract that was a shade less binding that a marriage
but more binding than an "I'll still respect you tomorrow, I
promise". Edward's union with Eleanor was probably no less binding
than the one he had with Elizabeth Woodville. (And no more so...his
marriage to Woodville was improper for several reasons, such as being
done in secret without the proper witnesses, but that did not
invalidate it -- it was invalid because he was already married to
Talbot who was still living at the time.)

So if Arthur had been born to Eleanor Talbot after the (marriage)
contract with Edward, then he would have been legitimate, Edward's
first-born son, and his legal heir, wouldn't he? And that would
really have been a complication to everything else that later
transpired.

Katy
bingo!
as william hastings was a close companion of e4, and assisted woodville in her "capturing/luring" e4..i've wondered..did hastings know about the talbot contract..and did he know of any issue by talbot and e4.
richard was a young child at the time of talbot/e4, and away from court much of the time. so, along with stillington's evidence, was there evidence of arthur and/or other siblings?
did hastings have the audacity to say to richard..if you make woodville's children illegitimate..then what about lady boteler's child/ren?
is this hasting's treason?
and here's the big IF..if arthur is talbot's child..then he would have to go into hiding wouldn't he..not only from richard, but also h7. remember he emerges after those who could identify/remember him are dead.
remember arthur has always known himself to be the king's bastard. he wasn't raised to be king, or even to expect to be king...but given the events in 1483 he was old enough to know..lay low and survive.
and was arthur always known as arthur? did he "invent" arthur as a cover to his true identity? was he aka edward of wigmore who "died" in 1468?
no one could quiz lady lucy..she died in 1466. no one could ask eleanor she died in 1468.
jane shore's son, peterkin was born circa 1475 and is supposed to have married in 1495...is peterkin aka arthur?
e4's promiscuity has lefted many unanswered questions, and lord only knows how many illegits or potential legits. we do know e4 had 3 sons by women other than woodville...arthur, edward and peterkin...edward if he lived is old enough to be my lord bastard. arthur also fits into the category of old enough to be my lord bastard. peterkin does not.
this is the main reason eleanor talbot's remains must be verifiably identified.
buckingham's rebellion may have also been to put arthur on the throne.
is this what buckingham was using to barter for his life in november 1483? remember, buckingham had important and urgent information, could it have been the location and identity of arthur or the location of the bodies of the princes?
and..with margaret of burgundy supporting the pretenders to h7's throne..had she simply heard, e4's son and heir survives...note all the pretenders claim to be edward, then change names/ranks...so edward of wigmore may have survived, and he may have been a son of talbot..and he may be aka arthur.
roslyn

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

> as william hastings was a close companion of e4, and assisted
woodville in her "capturing/luring" e4..i've wondered..did hastings
know about the talbot contract..and did he know of any issue by
talbot and e4.
> richard was a young child at the time of talbot/e4, and away from
court much of the time. so, along with stillington's evidence, was
there evidence of arthur and/or other siblings?
> did hastings have the audacity to say to richard..if you make
woodville's children illegitimate..then what about lady boteler's
child/ren?
> is this hasting's treason?
> and here's the big IF..if arthur is talbot's child..then he would
have to go into hiding wouldn't he..not only from richard, but also
h7. remember he emerges after those who could identify/remember him
are dead.
> no one could quiz lady lucy..she died in 1466. no one could ask
eleanor she died in 1468.



I don't follow. If Edward was legally married to Eleanor Butler, as
evidently he was, and Arthur was his son by her, why would there have
been any reason to hide Arthur, his legitimate son? A son is a good
thing to have around. Eleanor didn't live all that long after the
event, anyway, and if Edward had decided he didn't like her I think
he could have gotten out of the marriage on some grounds, such as
discovering a need for a dispensation they had not gotten in advance.

Katy

But if Arthur was born c1460-64 and thus a young adult in 1483-85, why are there no 'sightings' of him in Edward IV's reign? All we have is the 1472 reference to 'my lord bastard', which is highly ambiguous. It may well not have been to Arthur at all, and even if it was, it only indicates that he was alive in 1472, unless the content is age-specific (hire of wet nurse would indicate an infant, hire of tutor a boy of, probably, at least seven).

In order for Arthur to be Edward IV's son by Eleanor Talbot, a lot of complexity has to be introduced. He has to be kept 'in hiding' for a very lengthy period - indeed, he doesn't surface at all until after 1500, when he is around 40 years old. If the Eleanor Talbot theory is correct, then after she died there would be no particular need for Edward to conceal Arthur's existence - he could simply give out that Arthur was his bastard, and Edward had taken responsibility for his upbringing since his mother's death. Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age of 20, pretty much as one would expect.

Roslyn mentions Lord Scrope's career, but that bears out what I say. Scrope was born in 1460; he is on the list of those pardoned by Henry VII's first Parliament after Bosworth, when he was 25. If the tale that he married Edward IV's daughter Cecily is accurate he also married at around 25.

Ann

But if Arthur was born c1460-64 and thus a young adult in 1483-85, why are there no 'sightings' of him in Edward IV's reign? All we have is the 1472 reference to 'my lord bastard', which is highly ambiguous. It may well not have been to Arthur at all, and even if it was, it only indicates that he was alive in 1472, unless the content is age-specific (hire of wet nurse would indicate an infant, hire of tutor a boy of, probably, at least seven).
------------------
how many sightings/records are there of eliz/margaret? grace? mary? peterkin? unnamed daughter aka mrs. audley/tuchet, or edward of wigmore?
where did they live and who cared for and educated/raised them? what are their life events?
these children were all illegits of e4.
---------------------------

In order for Arthur to be Edward IV's son by Eleanor Talbot, a lot of complexity has to be introduced. He has to be kept 'in hiding' for a very lengthy period - indeed, he doesn't surface at all until after 1500, when he is around 40 years old. If the Eleanor Talbot theory is correct, then after she died there would be no particular need for Edward to conceal Arthur's existence - he could simply give out that Arthur was his bastard, and Edward had taken responsibility for his upbringing since his mother's death.
---------------
where are the records for mrs. lumley? why was she known as elizabeth?
-----------------
Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age of 20, pretty much as one would expect.
---------------
arthur was in the background, a non-person of no importance. he was not a threat to woodville and her clan...afterall woodville was married and e4 denied any contract with talbot. his word against anyone else who wanted to keep their head.
arthur may have gone into hiding at the time of clarence's accusation of treason...especially if that accusation included the revelation of talbot marriage.
-------------
Roslyn mentions Lord Scrope's career, but that bears out what I say. Scrope was born in 1460; he is on the list of those pardoned by Henry VII's first Parliament after Bosworth, when he was 25. If the tale that he married Edward IV's daughter Cecily is accurate he also married at around 25.
------------------
scrope was not an illegit, but simply an obscure third son of nobility.
his marriage to cecily is only confirmed by a divorice record. this record is not/was not common knowledge to researchers.
how do we know arthur was not married prior to 1502, or even before his marriage to elizabeth grey?
illness could wipe out whole families. maybe he never married, but had illegits of his own.
an absence of known records of events is not proof they did not or could not exist.
the trick is find records to verify or deny any theory...and that is what i'm working on.
roslyn
Ann

we don't know if e4 applied for a dispensation. if one exists, it may be in the vatican archives. BUT..i doubt there would be one, because the application for a dispensation would have been considered proof the marriage existed.
e4's betrothals/marriages were always secret. he only admitted to the woodville one to avoid another.

quite simply..e4 did not feel the need to request a dispensation. he did not believe/accept he was legally married to anyone. he could not even be faithful to woodville...aka the widow grey..the letter G.

i think the big question is...why did talbot go to a convent/nunnery in 1464? was she living in sanctuary to avoid retribution for refusing to deny a betrothal/marriage to e4?

where is her will? what lands did she hold? who inherited them (how were they disbursed) after her death in 1468? what was the cause of her death?

roslyn


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:

> as william hastings was a close companion of e4, and assisted
woodville in her "capturing/luring" e4..i've wondered..did hastings
know about the talbot contract..and did he know of any issue by
talbot and e4.
> richard was a young child at the time of talbot/e4, and away from
court much of the time. so, along with stillington's evidence, was
there evidence of arthur and/or other siblings?
> did hastings have the audacity to say to richard..if you make
woodville's children illegitimate..then what about lady boteler's
child/ren?
> is this hasting's treason?
> and here's the big IF..if arthur is talbot's child..then he would
have to go into hiding wouldn't he..not only from richard, but also
h7. remember he emerges after those who could identify/remember him
are dead.
> no one could quiz lady lucy..she died in 1466. no one could ask
eleanor she died in 1468.

I don't follow. If Edward was legally married to Eleanor Butler, as
evidently he was, and Arthur was his son by her, why would there have
been any reason to hide Arthur, his legitimate son? A son is a good
thing to have around. Eleanor didn't live all that long after the
event, anyway, and if Edward had decided he didn't like her I think
he could have gotten out of the marriage on some grounds, such as
discovering a need for a dispensation they had not gotten in advance.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> we don't know if e4 applied for a dispensation. if one exists, it
may be in the vatican archives. BUT..i doubt there would be one,
because the application for a dispensation would have been considered
proof the marriage existed.
> e4's betrothals/marriages were always secret. he only admitted to
the woodville one to avoid another.
>
> quite simply..e4 did not feel the need to request a dispensation.
he did not believe/accept he was legally married to anyone. he could
not even be faithful to woodville...aka the widow grey..the letter G.
>
> i think the big question is...why did talbot go to a
convent/nunnery in 1464? was she living in sanctuary to avoid
retribution for refusing to deny a betrothal/marriage to e4?
>
> where is her will? what lands did she hold? who inherited them
(how were they disbursed) after her death in 1468? what was the cause
of her death?
>
> roslyn
>
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> > as william hastings was a close companion of e4, and assisted
> woodville in her "capturing/luring" e4..i've wondered..did hastings
> know about the talbot contract..and did he know of any issue by
> talbot and e4.
> > richard was a young child at the time of talbot/e4, and away from
> court much of the time. so, along with stillington's evidence, was
> there evidence of arthur and/or other siblings?
> > did hastings have the audacity to say to richard..if you make
> woodville's children illegitimate..then what about lady boteler's
> child/ren?
> > is this hasting's treason?
> > and here's the big IF..if arthur is talbot's child..then he would
> have to go into hiding wouldn't he..not only from richard, but also
> h7. remember he emerges after those who could identify/remember him
> are dead.
> > no one could quiz lady lucy..she died in 1466. no one could ask
> eleanor she died in 1468.
>



Roslyn, this would make for a whopping good novel, if you do not have
the research time to produce a work of historical fact.

Fiction has a much larger audience, and remember what Josephine Tey
wrought with her mainsteam detective novel, "The Daughter of Time."

Katy

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:


how many sightings/records are there of eliz/margaret? grace? mary? peterkin? unnamed daughter aka mrs. audley/tuchet, or edward of wigmore?
where did they live and who cared for and educated/raised them? what are their life events?
these children were all illegits of e4.

---------------------------
As far as I'm aware, most, if not all of these, are mentioned once and once only. According to discussions on this topic, some at least did not live long, and some may not have existed at all (the same illegit was given different names by different writers). The point about Arthur, Viscount Lisle, is that he unquestionably lived to adulthood, so one might reasonably expect mention of him in the record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

where are the records for mrs. lumley? why was she known as elizabeth?
-----------------
Confusion over names?

Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age of 20, pretty much as one would expect.
---------------
arthur was in the background, a non-person of no importance. he was not a threat to woodville and her clan...afterall woodville was married and e4 denied any contract with talbot. his word against anyone else who wanted to keep their head.
-------------------------
A person of no importance, so no reason for him not to appear in the record as he reached adulthood. John of Gloucester was made Captain of Calais by Richard, so one might expect Edward IV in similar circumstances to provide for his bastard son in some way.

arthur may have gone into hiding at the time of clarence's accusation of treason...especially if that accusation included the revelation of talbot marriage.
-------------
Not impossible, but on your analysis his non-appearance in the sources doesn't prove anything.
------------------
scrope was not an illegit, but simply an obscure third son of nobility.
his marriage to cecily is only confirmed by a divorice record. this record is not/was not common knowledge to researchers.
how do we know arthur was not married prior to 1502, or even before his marriage to elizabeth grey?
illness could wipe out whole families. maybe he never married, but had illegits of his own.
an absence of known records of events is not proof they did not or could not exist.
the trick is find records to verify or deny any theory...and that is what i'm working on.
--------------------------
I'm not suggesting that Arthur, Viscount Lisle, never existed. What I am saying is that there is nothing to prove that his mother was Eleanor Talbot, and that on the facts as they are known at present it seems much more likely that she wasn't. Having been trained as an academic historian I'm well used to the fact that there tend to be gaps in the records just when something definite is most needed, and that one should be cautious about arguing from silence, but even so I think it unlikely that the illegitimate son of a king should suddenly emerge from total obscurity at the age of 40 and thereafter occupy a position of some prominence. That the same person was in fact in his early 20s seems much more reasonable.

Ann

Messages in this topic (30) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar


Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

1
New Members

1
New Files

Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.



.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> i think the big question is...why did talbot go to a
convent/nunnery in 1464? was she living in sanctuary to avoid
retribution for refusing to deny a betrothal/marriage to e4?
>
> where is her will? what lands did she hold? who inherited them
(how were they disbursed) after her death in 1468? what was the cause
of her death?
>
> roslyn
>

John Ashdown-Hill has answered some of these questions in his various
Ricardian articles. First Eleanor did *not* enter a nunnery. She was
a Third Order Franciscan, which is a sort of "Territorial Army" live-
in-the-world membership open then (and now) to devout lay people. She
is buried in a *male* friary. *If* the skeleton presumed to be her is
her, and that is not 100% sure, she had no children.

As to her lands she had some Butler dower property that reverted to
that family. However J A-H has found that she had some other land
that cannot be accounted for by inheritance and which she transferred
to his sister Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk just before her death.
This was by deed of gift, not will. It *may* be that Eleanor knew she
was dying but we don't know what of. Elizabeth was away in Burgundy
when Eleanor actually died. J A-H seems to think Eleanor had the land
because Edward gave it her, and I have no reason to think he is wrong.

Brian Wainwright

we know arthur existed. that has never been up for discussion. it is his life events and mother that are up for discussion.

mrs. lumley's mother (lady lucy) died in 1466 while lumley was still a small child. where are the records proving e4 was involved/contributed to her upbringing?

why was lady lucy such an enigma?

i do concur about some of e4's illegits could be phantoms and/or known by several names. the "ghost" child edward of wigmore intrigues me..and he is attributed to talbot. i find it "convenient" that he dies the same year as his reported mother...and i would definitely like to know where the record of his death was found...and the wording of that record.

the 1472..my lord bastard...indicates there was an illegitimate son. if not arthur or edward..then is there another yet to be discovered son of e4?

elizabeth lambert was known as jane shore...and she fooled historians/genealogists for centuries...where are the records for peterkin who married in 1494? who did he marry? is peterkin aka arthur?

the bottom line..is i have a lot of questions about arthur, and i'm searching for answers. the simplest answer is not always the correct one..it is only the easiest response.

with all due respect ann, following the tried and true path of pure academic research..is to me plodding at best, and often a way of ensuring new discoveries are not made. ..you gotta scramble in the dust to find that needle in the haystack..and that is what i'm doing..and have been doing for a decade.

had i listened to all the academics/experts who said..i was doing it wrong, or i'll never find proof..i would not be where i am today..which is sitting on a lot of information..i'm seeking primary sources..not rewritten and re-examined opinions of modern secondary sources.

i was recently asked why i am reading the old chronicles..there is nothing to be found in them..yet, i found where richard proclaims his innocence with regards to the princes after he returns to london after defeating buckingham.

i can't tell you how many times i've see.."neither richard or h7 commented on the princes"..yet..in 1484 richard declares his innocence. i've found five records where buckingham is involved or accused of killing/disappearing the princes.

if i had followed all the advice of the "experts"..i'd still be plodding on..and not finding and compiling evidence enough to convince me..richard did not harm the boys. buckingham did it..there is no leap of faith, a small step perhaps.

anyhow, we/i have the who..what i/we need now is why...the when...which is sometime after richard left london on his first progress, and before the first rumours of the boys' death in late summer 1483.

"Having taught in a university history department for more than 36 years
now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on the street before asking an
academic colleague in history."
Norman Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California


consider that latin was a compulsory course in public school, and now it is not.

historic records are written in the "universal" legal language, latin.

the powers that be (government/academia) decided the vulgar/common masses need only to be educated in the language they speak. if they are kept ignorant of history..history can be hidden and repeat itself.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo." Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

translated:
people want to be deceived; therefore, let them be deceived.
i loathe the uneducated/unholy masses and keep/drive them away.

"But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to
be a great pretender and dissembler (disguiser, concealer) ; and men are so
simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive
will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived....
"Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I
have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall
dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is
injurious (harmful), and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear
merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright (honest), and to be so, but
with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able
and know how to change to the opposite....
"For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his
state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by
everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few
find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on."

quoted by the beaucrat's bible...
http://www.the-prince-by-machiavelli.com/the-prince/the_prince_chapter_18.html


thinking outside the box is the best way to find the truth.

bill gates..university drop-out = multi-billionaire
roslyn -a member of the profanum vulgus..i.e. not certifiably paper trained.




A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:


fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

how many sightings/records are there of eliz/margaret? grace? mary? peterkin? unnamed daughter aka mrs. audley/tuchet, or edward of wigmore?
where did they live and who cared for and educated/raised them? what are their life events?
these children were all illegits of e4.

---------------------------
As far as I'm aware, most, if not all of these, are mentioned once and once only. According to discussions on this topic, some at least did not live long, and some may not have existed at all (the same illegit was given different names by different writers). The point about Arthur, Viscount Lisle, is that he unquestionably lived to adulthood, so one might reasonably expect mention of him in the record.
----------------------------------------------------------

where are the records for mrs. lumley? why was she known as elizabeth?
-----------------
Confusion over names?

Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age of 20, pretty much as one would expect.
---------------
arthur was in the background, a non-person of no importance. he was not a threat to woodville and her clan...afterall woodville was married and e4 denied any contract with talbot. his word against anyone else who wanted to keep their head.
-------------------------
A person of no importance, so no reason for him not to appear in the record as he reached adulthood. John of Gloucester was made Captain of Calais by Richard, so one might expect Edward IV in similar circumstances to provide for his bastard son in some way.

arthur may have gone into hiding at the time of clarence's accusation of treason...especially if that accusation included the revelation of talbot marriage.
-------------
Not impossible, but on your analysis his non-appearance in the sources doesn't prove anything.
------------------
scrope was not an illegit, but simply an obscure third son of nobility.
his marriage to cecily is only confirmed by a divorice record. this record is not/was not common knowledge to researchers.
how do we know arthur was not married prior to 1502, or even before his marriage to elizabeth grey?
illness could wipe out whole families. maybe he never married, but had illegits of his own.
an absence of known records of events is not proof they did not or could not exist.
the trick is find records to verify or deny any theory...and that is what i'm working on.
--------------------------
I'm not suggesting that Arthur, Viscount Lisle, never existed. What I am saying is that there is nothing to prove that his mother was Eleanor Talbot, and that on the facts as they are known at present it seems much more likely that she wasn't. Having been trained as an academic historian I'm well used to the fact that there tend to be gaps in the records just when something definite is most needed, and that one should be cautious about arguing from silence, but even so I think it unlikely that the illegitimate son of a king should suddenly emerge from total obscurity at the age of 40 and thereafter occupy a position of some prominence. That the same person was in fact in his early 20s seems much more reasonable.

Ann

Messages in this topic (30) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar


Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

1
New Members

1
New Files

Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

>>
> Do you suppose, then, that perhaps the illegitimate daughter of
> Edward IV's named Elizabeth, and Elizabeth Lucy who was supposedly
> one of his mistresses, were one and the same? I don't mean that he
> made a mistress of his own daughter, but rather that the names have
> been confused and blurred together, producing a mistress named
> Elizabeth Lucy who didn't exist who was actually Margaret Lucy,
> mother of the Elizabeth Lucy who was Edward's child.

In a nutshell, no, it seems that Edward's illegitimate daughter
Elizabeth was really Margaret. Edward's daughter Lady Lumley is
generally said to have been called Elizabeth, but Michael Hicks says
this has been based on later tradition only, and in his Edward IV cites
a document in Durham from the 1470s relating to her marriage which
clearly gives her name as Margaret. So to find that the mysterious Lady
Lucy was also really named Margaret not Elizabeth is not so surprising.
More may have been getting mixed up with another Lady Lucy, or he may
have confused Margaret Lucy with Edward's later mistress Elizabeth
Lambert (aka 'Jane' Shore - see how the Tudors mess the names up?).

Roslyn, can I just ask what is the evidence that Arthur was born in
the early 1460s?

Is this based on anything more that Murial Thingie Byrne's assumption
based on the late tradition that he was Lady Lucy's son? There is no
reason to accept such late testimony (two or three generations after
Lisle's death, I believe), and it does not square with Lisle's
career. Nor do the Lisle Letters suggest any close ties between Lisle
and his supposed full sister Lady Lumley (who, incidentally, married
over 30 years before Arthur).
Once one accepts that Arthur Wayte was not the offspring of Lady
Lucy, then the only "evidence" for his birth in the early 1460s is
destroyed. There is no evidence to link him with the Lord Bastard of
the 1470s document (which I seem to recall dates to 1478 and relates
to clothing for the marriage ceremony of Richard Duke of York, but I
stand to be corrected).

By the by, I think my last post got lost, but (to Katy) no, Edward's
daughter Elizabeth simply becomes Margaret - there aren't two of
them. By later tradition, again, it has always been believed that
Lady Lumley was called Elizabeth, but Michael Hicks refers in his
Edward V to a Durham document of the late 1470s relating to her
marriage, which clearly names her as Margaret. That and 'Jane' Shore
just go to show how careful one has to be in accepting later
traditions.

Cecily's marriage to Ralph Scrope has been discussed before on the
forum. Rosemary Horrox' source, Helmholz, is THE expert on the
history of English canon law and is a very serious reliable
researcher, so if he's found something I tend to trust it.
As far as Scrope being far beneath Princess Cecily goes, yes of
course he would have been if she had still been Princess Cecily, but
of course during Richard's reign her status was merely that of a
royal bastard. All Richard had promised their mother when she let the
girls out of sanctuary was to marry them "to gentlemen born", and
that Scrope certainly was.
Vergil would have been keen to put a negative spin on this marriage
as it was no more disparaging than the match Henry VII was to make
for Clarence's legitimate daughter Margaret. Also, it appears that
Cecily may have been reluctant to drop Scrope in favour of the more
high-flown match the Tudors had lined up for her, with Henry's middle-
aged uncle Lord Welles. Apparently Margaret Beaufort was moved to
promise Cecily that she could choose for herself next time round. And
what did Cecily do when her undisparaging lordly match finally turned
up his wrinkly toes? She ran off and married a nobody, Thomas Kyme of
Umfraville, without asking the King. Henry was so furious Cecily had
to flee to his mother's household for safety, and Margaret Beaufort
was forced to remind Henry of the promise that had been made to
Cecily when she married Welles (my source for all this is 'The King's
Mother' by Jones & Underwood). So we perhaps shouldn't assume that
Cecily would have considered herself too posh for a junior Scrope if
he took her fancy.

Marie




--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But if Arthur was born c1460-64 and thus a young adult in 1483-
85, why are there no 'sightings' of him in Edward IV's reign? All we
have is the 1472 reference to 'my lord bastard', which is highly
ambiguous. It may well not have been to Arthur at all, and even if it
was, it only indicates that he was alive in 1472, unless the content
is age-specific (hire of wet nurse would indicate an infant, hire of
tutor a boy of, probably, at least seven).
> ------------------
> how many sightings/records are there of eliz/margaret? grace?
mary? peterkin? unnamed daughter aka mrs. audley/tuchet, or edward of
wigmore?
> where did they live and who cared for and educated/raised them?
what are their life events?
> these children were all illegits of e4.
> ---------------------------
>
> In order for Arthur to be Edward IV's son by Eleanor Talbot, a lot
of complexity has to be introduced. He has to be kept 'in hiding' for
a very lengthy period - indeed, he doesn't surface at all until after
1500, when he is around 40 years old. If the Eleanor Talbot theory is
correct, then after she died there would be no particular need for
Edward to conceal Arthur's existence - he could simply give out that
Arthur was his bastard, and Edward had taken responsibility for his
upbringing since his mother's death.
> ---------------
> where are the records for mrs. lumley? why was she known as
elizabeth?
> -----------------
> Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but
that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's
entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution
is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward
IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age
of 20, pretty much as one would expect.
> ---------------
> arthur was in the background, a non-person of no importance. he
was not a threat to woodville and her clan...afterall woodville was
married and e4 denied any contract with talbot. his word against
anyone else who wanted to keep their head.
> arthur may have gone into hiding at the time of clarence's
accusation of treason...especially if that accusation included the
revelation of talbot marriage.
> -------------
> Roslyn mentions Lord Scrope's career, but that bears out what I
say. Scrope was born in 1460; he is on the list of those pardoned by
Henry VII's first Parliament after Bosworth, when he was 25. If the
tale that he married Edward IV's daughter Cecily is accurate he also
married at around 25.
> ------------------
> scrope was not an illegit, but simply an obscure third son of
nobility.
> his marriage to cecily is only confirmed by a divorice record.
this record is not/was not common knowledge to researchers.
> how do we know arthur was not married prior to 1502, or even
before his marriage to elizabeth grey?
> illness could wipe out whole families. maybe he never married,
but had illegits of his own.
> an absence of known records of events is not proof they did not
or could not exist.
> the trick is find records to verify or deny any theory...and that
is what i'm working on.
> roslyn
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date for Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by Edward IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the following entry:
Item, for my Lord the Bastard
Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.

C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer, believes that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...

end quote
it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's invention.
byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few pages later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral of princess margaret.

i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of 1472...i've a passion for little details...and an almost photographic memory..although some days since i passed the half century mark..i do have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))

anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm noticing some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a response to what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.

so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in 1472?
was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male illegit.
roslyn



mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

Roslyn, can I just ask what is the evidence that Arthur was born in
the early 1460s?

Is this based on anything more that Murial Thingie Byrne's assumption
based on the late tradition that he was Lady Lucy's son? There is no
reason to accept such late testimony (two or three generations after
Lisle's death, I believe), and it does not square with Lisle's
career. Nor do the Lisle Letters suggest any close ties between Lisle
and his supposed full sister Lady Lumley (who, incidentally, married
over 30 years before Arthur).
Once one accepts that Arthur Wayte was not the offspring of Lady
Lucy, then the only "evidence" for his birth in the early 1460s is
destroyed. There is no evidence to link him with the Lord Bastard of
the 1470s document (which I seem to recall dates to 1478 and relates
to clothing for the marriage ceremony of Richard Duke of York, but I
stand to be corrected).

By the by, I think my last post got lost, but (to Katy) no, Edward's
daughter Elizabeth simply becomes Margaret - there aren't two of
them. By later tradition, again, it has always been believed that
Lady Lumley was called Elizabeth, but Michael Hicks refers in his
Edward V to a Durham document of the late 1470s relating to her
marriage, which clearly names her as Margaret. That and 'Jane' Shore
just go to show how careful one has to be in accepting later
traditions.

Cecily's marriage to Ralph Scrope has been discussed before on the
forum. Rosemary Horrox' source, Helmholz, is THE expert on the
history of English canon law and is a very serious reliable
researcher, so if he's found something I tend to trust it.
As far as Scrope being far beneath Princess Cecily goes, yes of
course he would have been if she had still been Princess Cecily, but
of course during Richard's reign her status was merely that of a
royal bastard. All Richard had promised their mother when she let the
girls out of sanctuary was to marry them "to gentlemen born", and
that Scrope certainly was.
Vergil would have been keen to put a negative spin on this marriage
as it was no more disparaging than the match Henry VII was to make
for Clarence's legitimate daughter Margaret. Also, it appears that
Cecily may have been reluctant to drop Scrope in favour of the more
high-flown match the Tudors had lined up for her, with Henry's middle-
aged uncle Lord Welles. Apparently Margaret Beaufort was moved to
promise Cecily that she could choose for herself next time round. And
what did Cecily do when her undisparaging lordly match finally turned
up his wrinkly toes? She ran off and married a nobody, Thomas Kyme of
Umfraville, without asking the King. Henry was so furious Cecily had
to flee to his mother's household for safety, and Margaret Beaufort
was forced to remind Henry of the promise that had been made to
Cecily when she married Welles (my source for all this is 'The King's
Mother' by Jones & Underwood). So we perhaps shouldn't assume that
Cecily would have considered herself too posh for a junior Scrope if
he took her fancy.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But if Arthur was born c1460-64 and thus a young adult in 1483-
85, why are there no 'sightings' of him in Edward IV's reign? All we
have is the 1472 reference to 'my lord bastard', which is highly
ambiguous. It may well not have been to Arthur at all, and even if it
was, it only indicates that he was alive in 1472, unless the content
is age-specific (hire of wet nurse would indicate an infant, hire of
tutor a boy of, probably, at least seven).
> ------------------
> how many sightings/records are there of eliz/margaret? grace?
mary? peterkin? unnamed daughter aka mrs. audley/tuchet, or edward of
wigmore?
> where did they live and who cared for and educated/raised them?
what are their life events?
> these children were all illegits of e4.
> ---------------------------
>
> In order for Arthur to be Edward IV's son by Eleanor Talbot, a lot
of complexity has to be introduced. He has to be kept 'in hiding' for
a very lengthy period - indeed, he doesn't surface at all until after
1500, when he is around 40 years old. If the Eleanor Talbot theory is
correct, then after she died there would be no particular need for
Edward to conceal Arthur's existence - he could simply give out that
Arthur was his bastard, and Edward had taken responsibility for his
upbringing since his mother's death.
> ---------------
> where are the records for mrs. lumley? why was she known as
elizabeth?
> -----------------
> Edward would need to conceal the identity of Arthur's mother, but
that, to my mind, would be less difficult than concealing a person's
entire existence for forty years. To my mind the more likely solution
is the simplest, that Arthur was born in the final years of Edward
IV's reign, and when he appears in the record it is at about the age
of 20, pretty much as one would expect.
> ---------------
> arthur was in the background, a non-person of no importance. he
was not a threat to woodville and her clan...afterall woodville was
married and e4 denied any contract with talbot. his word against
anyone else who wanted to keep their head.
> arthur may have gone into hiding at the time of clarence's
accusation of treason...especially if that accusation included the
revelation of talbot marriage.
> -------------
> Roslyn mentions Lord Scrope's career, but that bears out what I
say. Scrope was born in 1460; he is on the list of those pardoned by
Henry VII's first Parliament after Bosworth, when he was 25. If the
tale that he married Edward IV's daughter Cecily is accurate he also
married at around 25.
> ------------------
> scrope was not an illegit, but simply an obscure third son of
nobility.
> his marriage to cecily is only confirmed by a divorice record.
this record is not/was not common knowledge to researchers.
> how do we know arthur was not married prior to 1502, or even
before his marriage to elizabeth grey?
> illness could wipe out whole families. maybe he never married,
but had illegits of his own.
> an absence of known records of events is not proof they did not
or could not exist.
> the trick is find records to verify or deny any theory...and that
is what i'm working on.
> roslyn
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date for
Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by Edward
IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
following entry:
> Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
>
> C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer, believes
that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...

Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is simply
dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The items
for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of satin &
velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were probably
being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray, which
took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur because
she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of Edward's
whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the case
that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and so
on.
It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's had
produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some of
his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied Elizabeth
Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known of
from no other source.
So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even if
he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.

>
> end quote
> it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
invention.
> byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few pages
later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral of
princess margaret.
>
> i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of 1472...i've
a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
memory..although some days since i passed the half century mark..i do
have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))

I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from 26
March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only the
notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference to
date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is it
possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?


>
> anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm noticing
some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a response to
what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
>
> so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
1472?
> was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
illegit.
> roslyn

The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was a 'family
tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.

Briefly, I accept that in order to make progress in research you have to go back to the original sources, and to think outside the box. Just to cite one example, Muriel St Clair Byrne takes the view that Arthur was born in the 1460s and hi mother was Elizabeth Lucy. Immediate question - what makes her say that? You go back to the original sources and see what they say. Most of the time, of course, the original sources are susceptible to more than one interpretation, and, realistically, the highest level of proof you are likely to get is 'probably yes', or 'probably no'. If you are looking for evidence in relation to a particular theory, you also have to be extremely careful not to concentrate only on the material which tends to support your theory. I am not saying that this is what you are doing, merely saying that this is a risk.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the surviving record as known at present to indicate who Arthur's mother was. The 'my lord Bastard' referred to in the 1470s COULD possibly be Arthur, but it is at least equally possible that it wasn't. Putting in my two penn'orth, I would say that the type of clothes ordered means that this boy was not an infant, but, given that Richard, Duke of York, was only four when he married Anne Mowbray, the lord Bastard might be no older. So, if the suggestion that the clothes were ordered for the lord Bastard in order to attend his half-brother's wedding is correct, then all it tells us is that in 1477 Edward IV had a living bastard son born in 1473 or earlier. Given Edward's known promiscuity, and he fact that his marriage produced a large number of children, this is scarcely surprising. I would be inclined to think that the lord Bastard was rather older than four in 1477, but that is no more than a feeling (I would need some evidence on
what was the accepted minimum age for children to attend weddings in 1477!)

For me the fundamental sticking point is that all we know of Arthur's career points to a date of birth at the end of Edward IV's reign rather than the beginning. The fact that he achieved some public prominence as an adult suggests, in that highly class-conscious age, that his mother was not from the lower orders, but beyond that we know nothing.

Ann

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> > The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date
for
> Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by
Edward
> IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
> ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
> following entry:
> > Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> > Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> > Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> > Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
> >
> > C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer,
believes
> that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...
>
> Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
> have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is
simply
> dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The items
> for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of satin
&
> velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
> certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
> Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were
probably
> being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray, which
> took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
> Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur
because
> she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
> 1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of Edward's
> whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the
case
> that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
> anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
> infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
> Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and
so
> on.
> It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's had
> produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some of
> his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
> Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied Elizabeth
> Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known
of
> from no other source.
> So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even if
> he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.
>
> >
> > end quote
> > it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
> invention.
> > byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
> talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few pages
> later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral of
> princess margaret.
> >
> > i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of
1472...i've
> a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
> memory..although some days since i passed the half century mark..i
do
> have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))
>
> I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from
26
> March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only
the
> notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
> reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference to
> date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is it
> possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?
>
>
> >
> > anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm
noticing
> some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a response
to
> what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
> me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
> >
> > so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
> 1472?
> > was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
> illegit.
> > roslyn
>
> The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
> than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was
a 'family
> tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.
>
So lets examine the facts and probabilities.

FACTS: Arthur existed. He died in 1542 just after being acquitted of
treason.

THE ELDERLY: PH believes him to be about 80 but at least 71 at the
time. His cousin the Countess was 67/68 at her execution and quite
fit until shortly before it.

PROBABILITIES: The corpse found at the priory is almost certainly
(99%) that of Lady Eleanor and the evidence at the site would
preclude her from having had children. We need to look elsewhere for
Arthur's mother, also because he would otherwise have been legitimate
and because she died much earlier than the other candidate.

SO WHO WAS SHE: The Ricardian articles "The illegitimate children of
Edward IV" (PH) and "The Elusive Mistress" (JA-H) plus the Lumley-
Conyers dispensation of 1489 (which I shall see in the original
format soon), identify one mistress who died before 1487 and probably
before 1482 as Elizabeth Lucy nee Wayte.
"The illegitimate children" calls Arthur the only proven one,
although the significance of the dispensation and my elimination of
other connections necessitating it, has surely added Lady Lumley to
the list.

THEREFORE: The simplest possible solution to satisfy all the known
facts (Occam's Razor) is that Lady Lumley and Arthur had one and the
same mother. Any alternative requires unnecessary complication or the
overturning of a fact or "99% fact".
If "Edward of Wigmore" existed and the tradition is that he died
young at the sime time as his mother then it is very probably true -
just as if hundreds of people witnessed the Earl of Warwick's
beheading then it almost certainly was the Earl of Warwick being
beheaded, Prince Louis dying in prison in 1795?, Dmitri of Russia
dying in c. 1500, Anastasia in 1918, Edward II who suffered from that
poker, Harold II who died at Hastings. If any of the myths
surrounding these people are true then I need to see more evidence.

But doesn't our Society exist to dispute erroneous "facts"? No, we
exist to challenge people's things that a lot of people assume to be
facts. That is very different. Even significant members had
assumptions about Margaret of Salisbury and the Staffords, which I
hope a yellow booklet has been able to dispel.
Just try a little logic.

Finally, my three preferred websites say:
(TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
(CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes the
forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions this.
(VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
File on this Forum.

So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
Which is the more likely?

marie, i know you have access to the life record's of arthur by byrne.

i made only one error in quoting/transcribing the info from the lisle letters. i missed a comma after "item".

my eyesight may be bad, but i'm not blindly stupid.

i can list incidences within my own family of several daughters and only one son. my great uncle had 7 daughters and one son..2 marriages. my cousin has six girls and one boy..his last child..and one marriage.

i come from a family of all girls. i've one uncle who pays the parents of our surname, $1000 dollars per son born. our surname is daughtering out.

the male is "responsible" for the sex of a child...and e4 shows a trend for producing daughters over sons.

he has 11 daughters and 6 sons per "records".

of his illegits..3 sons, and 4 daughters. of the illegit sons..there may actually only be two...arthur/edward or arthur/peterkin..or possibly only one, arthur.
of his illegit daughters. there may only be 3 girls..margaret, grace and mary.

grace maybe the spouse of audley/touchet. mary maybe the unnamed spouse.
her marriage was to a crown employee..aka a civil servant.
the lumley and audley/tuchet marriages were of peerage.

of his woodville issue of 10 children, he has 7 girls and 3 boys.

e4's trend is to produce daughters. this however, doesn't rule out more unknown sons. it just makes it unlikely.

interesting..the "existence" of edward of wigmore as being a family tradition...family stories can get twisted..which leaves me to wonder even more if edward should be known as edward of wigorn(e) vs wigmore.

i have not read scofield to be able to comment on the information you have shared.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date for
Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by Edward
IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
following entry:
> Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
>
> C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer, believes
that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...

Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is simply
dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The items
for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of satin &
velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were probably
being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray, which
took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur because
she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of Edward's
whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the case
that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and so
on.
It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's had
produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some of
his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied Elizabeth
Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known of
from no other source.
So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even if
he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.

>
> end quote
> it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
invention.
> byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few pages
later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral of
princess margaret.
>
> i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of 1472...i've
a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
memory..although some days since i passed the half century mark..i do
have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))

I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from 26
March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only the
notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference to
date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is it
possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?

>
> anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm noticing
some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a response to
what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
>
> so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
1472?
> was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
illegit.
> roslyn

The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was a 'family
tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.

stephen wrote...
Finally, my three preferred websites say:
(TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
(CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes the
forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions this.
(VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
File on this Forum.

So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
Which is the more likely?
------
all are inaccurate..
lady lucy aka margaret fitzlewis is the mother of margaret m. lumley.
she is not nee waite, she is not elizabeth...her daughter is not elizabeth.

moreover, there is doubt that arthur is mrs. lumley's full brother.

a 2002 posting to a medieval genealogy forum from van de pas..
According to Cahiers de Saint Louis, pages 107 and 108.
Edward IV had two children by Elisabeth Luci (Elisabeth the continental spelling). And by Jane Shore he had another bastard Peterkin Plantagenet, bastard of England, who married in 1495.
Both Arthur and his full sister, Elizabeth, are named as Plantagenet, bastard of England. Elizabeth married a Sir Thomas Lomley.
However, Cahiers de Saint Louis was a work in progress and on page 880 changes the above. Elisabeth Waite (previously mentioned as Elisabeth Luci) had only one child by Edward IV, Arthur.
Then there is a Grace (no husband) and the previously mentioned Elizabeth, mothered by unknowns. This time this Elizabeth is married to Thomas Lumley, 4th Lord Lumley. Grace and Elizabeth have an ominous footnote: Pour Grace, voir C.Ross, "Edward IV" (London, 1974) page 316, note 2. Quant a Elisabeth mentionnee dans une genealogie du XVIe siecle, mais point dans les documents contemporains; sa filiation demeure donc incertaine.
end extract

roslyn


Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> > The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date
for
> Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by
Edward
> IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
> ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
> following entry:
> > Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> > Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> > Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> > Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
> >
> > C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer,
believes
> that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...
>
> Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
> have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is
simply
> dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The items
> for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of satin
&
> velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
> certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
> Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were
probably
> being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray, which
> took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
> Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur
because
> she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
> 1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of Edward's
> whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the
case
> that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
> anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
> infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
> Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and
so
> on.
> It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's had
> produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some of
> his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
> Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied Elizabeth
> Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known
of
> from no other source.
> So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even if
> he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.
>
> >
> > end quote
> > it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
> invention.
> > byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
> talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few pages
> later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral of
> princess margaret.
> >
> > i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of
1472...i've
> a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
> memory..although some days since i passed the half century mark..i
do
> have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))
>
> I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from
26
> March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only
the
> notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
> reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference to
> date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is it
> possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?
>
>
> >
> > anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm
noticing
> some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a response
to
> what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
> me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
> >
> > so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
> 1472?
> > was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
> illegit.
> > roslyn
>
> The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
> than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was
a 'family
> tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.
>
So lets examine the facts and probabilities.

FACTS: Arthur existed. He died in 1542 just after being acquitted of
treason.

THE ELDERLY: PH believes him to be about 80 but at least 71 at the
time. His cousin the Countess was 67/68 at her execution and quite
fit until shortly before it.

PROBABILITIES: The corpse found at the priory is almost certainly
(99%) that of Lady Eleanor and the evidence at the site would
preclude her from having had children. We need to look elsewhere for
Arthur's mother, also because he would otherwise have been legitimate
and because she died much earlier than the other candidate.

SO WHO WAS SHE: The Ricardian articles "The illegitimate children of
Edward IV" (PH) and "The Elusive Mistress" (JA-H) plus the Lumley-
Conyers dispensation of 1489 (which I shall see in the original
format soon), identify one mistress who died before 1487 and probably
before 1482 as Elizabeth Lucy nee Wayte.
"The illegitimate children" calls Arthur the only proven one,
although the significance of the dispensation and my elimination of
other connections necessitating it, has surely added Lady Lumley to
the list.

THEREFORE: The simplest possible solution to satisfy all the known
facts (Occam's Razor) is that Lady Lumley and Arthur had one and the
same mother. Any alternative requires unnecessary complication or the
overturning of a fact or "99% fact".
If "Edward of Wigmore" existed and the tradition is that he died
young at the sime time as his mother then it is very probably true -
just as if hundreds of people witnessed the Earl of Warwick's
beheading then it almost certainly was the Earl of Warwick being
beheaded, Prince Louis dying in prison in 1795?, Dmitri of Russia
dying in c. 1500, Anastasia in 1918, Edward II who suffered from that
poker, Harold II who died at Hastings. If any of the myths
surrounding these people are true then I need to see more evidence.

But doesn't our Society exist to dispute erroneous "facts"? No, we
exist to challenge people's things that a lot of people assume to be
facts. That is very different. Even significant members had
assumptions about Margaret of Salisbury and the Staffords, which I
hope a yellow booklet has been able to dispel.
Just try a little logic.

Finally, my three preferred websites say:
(TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
(CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister of
Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes the
forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions this.
(VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
File on this Forum.

So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
Which is the more likely?

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> stephen wrote...
> Finally, my three preferred websites say:
> (TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
> clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
> (CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
> married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
> provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes
the
> forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions
this.
> (VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
> General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
> sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
> File on this Forum.
>
> So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
> Which is the more likely?
> ------
> all are inaccurate..
> lady lucy aka margaret fitzlewis is the mother of margaret m.
lumley.
> she is not nee waite, she is not elizabeth...her daughter is not
elizabeth.
>
> moreover, there is doubt that arthur is mrs. lumley's full
brother.
>
> a 2002 posting to a medieval genealogy forum from van de pas..
> According to Cahiers de Saint Louis, pages 107 and 108.
> Edward IV had two children by Elisabeth Luci (Elisabeth the
continental spelling). And by Jane Shore he had another bastard
Peterkin Plantagenet, bastard of England, who married in 1495.
> Both Arthur and his full sister, Elizabeth, are named as
Plantagenet, bastard of England. Elizabeth married a Sir Thomas
Lomley.
> However, Cahiers de Saint Louis was a work in progress and on
page 880 changes the above. Elisabeth Waite (previously mentioned as
Elisabeth Luci) had only one child by Edward IV, Arthur.
> Then there is a Grace (no husband) and the previously mentioned
Elizabeth, mothered by unknowns. This time this Elizabeth is married
to Thomas Lumley, 4th Lord Lumley. Grace and Elizabeth have an
ominous footnote: Pour Grace, voir C.Ross, "Edward IV" (London, 1974)
page 316, note 2. Quant a Elisabeth mentionnee dans une genealogie du
XVIe siecle, mais point dans les documents contemporains; sa
filiation demeure donc incertaine.
> end extract
>
> roslyn
>
I am quoting van de Pas' own website, last edited on 31 January,
which you recommended to me in the first place - it is very good and
more dynamic than the others. The article "The illegitimate children
of Edward IV" was by the Society President who has also been a CP
editor and is curious about my dispensation work - the Society line
on Lumleys has definitely evolved in recent years.
Sometimes, offline research leads to a contradiction: Burke's, the CP
and DNB disagree as they did about Thomas Stafford so I had to use my
judgement. Here we have three e-genealogists who have done the same
and reached very similar conclusions.
I shall check the CP when I am next able, because it would outrank
the Cahiers in my mind,but the logical answer is that three e-
genealogists on different continents have used their judgement
separately and are all largely right.
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In
, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> > > The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date
> for
> > Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by
> Edward
> > IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
> > ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
> > following entry:
> > > Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> > > Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> > > Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> > > Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
> > >
> > > C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer,
> believes
> > that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...
> >
> > Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
> > have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is
> simply
> > dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The
items
> > for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of
satin
> &
> > velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
> > certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
> > Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were
> probably
> > being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray,
which
> > took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
> > Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur
> because
> > she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
> > 1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of
Edward's
> > whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the
> case
> > that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
> > anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
> > infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
> > Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and
> so
> > on.
> > It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's
had
> > produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some
of
> > his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
> > Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied
Elizabeth
> > Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known
> of
> > from no other source.
> > So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even
if
> > he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.
> >
> > >
> > > end quote
> > > it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
> > invention.
> > > byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
> > talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few
pages
> > later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral
of
> > princess margaret.
> > >
> > > i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of
> 1472...i've
> > a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
> > memory..although some days since i passed the half century
mark..i
> do
> > have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))
> >
> > I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from
> 26
> > March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only
> the
> > notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
> > reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference
to
> > date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is
it
> > possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm
> noticing
> > some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a
response
> to
> > what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
> > me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
> > >
> > > so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
> > 1472?
> > > was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
> > illegit.
> > > roslyn
> >
> > The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
> > than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was
> a 'family
> > tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.
> >
> So lets examine the facts and probabilities.
>
> FACTS: Arthur existed. He died in 1542 just after being acquitted
of
> treason.
>
> THE ELDERLY: PH believes him to be about 80 but at least 71 at the
> time. His cousin the Countess was 67/68 at her execution and quite
> fit until shortly before it.
>
> PROBABILITIES: The corpse found at the priory is almost certainly
> (99%) that of Lady Eleanor and the evidence at the site would
> preclude her from having had children. We need to look elsewhere
for
> Arthur's mother, also because he would otherwise have been
legitimate
> and because she died much earlier than the other candidate.
>
> SO WHO WAS SHE: The Ricardian articles "The illegitimate children
of
> Edward IV" (PH) and "The Elusive Mistress" (JA-H) plus the Lumley-
> Conyers dispensation of 1489 (which I shall see in the original
> format soon), identify one mistress who died before 1487 and
probably
> before 1482 as Elizabeth Lucy nee Wayte.
> "The illegitimate children" calls Arthur the only proven one,
> although the significance of the dispensation and my elimination of
> other connections necessitating it, has surely added Lady Lumley to
> the list.
>
> THEREFORE: The simplest possible solution to satisfy all the known
> facts (Occam's Razor) is that Lady Lumley and Arthur had one and
the
> same mother. Any alternative requires unnecessary complication or
the
> overturning of a fact or "99% fact".
> If "Edward of Wigmore" existed and the tradition is that he died
> young at the sime time as his mother then it is very probably true -

> just as if hundreds of people witnessed the Earl of Warwick's
> beheading then it almost certainly was the Earl of Warwick being
> beheaded, Prince Louis dying in prison in 1795?, Dmitri of Russia
> dying in c. 1500, Anastasia in 1918, Edward II who suffered from
that
> poker, Harold II who died at Hastings. If any of the myths
> surrounding these people are true then I need to see more evidence.
>
> But doesn't our Society exist to dispute erroneous "facts"? No, we
> exist to challenge people's things that a lot of people assume to
be
> facts. That is very different. Even significant members had
> assumptions about Margaret of Salisbury and the Staffords, which I
> hope a yellow booklet has been able to dispel.
> Just try a little logic.
>
> Finally, my three preferred websites say:
> (TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
> clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
> (CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
> married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
> provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes
the
> forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions
this.
> (VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
> General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
> sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
> File on this Forum.
>
> So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
> Which is the more likely?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

tompsett is not a genealogist. the site is to test a computer program. experienced genealogists do not consider that site a reliable source. they scoff at it as much as the AFN files provided by the LDS.

tudor place has many errors...but definitely supplies good notes and commentary.

leo is the best/most trust worthy of the three. and he makes errors too.
even cp has its errors. chris phillips medieval webpages have the known/found corrections.
burkes is more error prone than cp.
cashiers has more obscure and european lines..which is why leo likes it.

i'd strongly suggest you check out douglas richardsons work/research. to the best of my knowledge, he does not have a gedcom/website, but has written/co-written books on plantagenet ancestry and related family. his website is dedicated to his book/s the last time i checked it..about a year ago.

roslyn


Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> stephen wrote...
> Finally, my three preferred websites say:
> (TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
> clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
> (CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
> married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
> provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes
the
> forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions
this.
> (VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
> General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
> sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
> File on this Forum.
>
> So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
> Which is the more likely?
> ------
> all are inaccurate..
> lady lucy aka margaret fitzlewis is the mother of margaret m.
lumley.
> she is not nee waite, she is not elizabeth...her daughter is not
elizabeth.
>
> moreover, there is doubt that arthur is mrs. lumley's full
brother.
>
> a 2002 posting to a medieval genealogy forum from van de pas..
> According to Cahiers de Saint Louis, pages 107 and 108.
> Edward IV had two children by Elisabeth Luci (Elisabeth the
continental spelling). And by Jane Shore he had another bastard
Peterkin Plantagenet, bastard of England, who married in 1495.
> Both Arthur and his full sister, Elizabeth, are named as
Plantagenet, bastard of England. Elizabeth married a Sir Thomas
Lomley.
> However, Cahiers de Saint Louis was a work in progress and on
page 880 changes the above. Elisabeth Waite (previously mentioned as
Elisabeth Luci) had only one child by Edward IV, Arthur.
> Then there is a Grace (no husband) and the previously mentioned
Elizabeth, mothered by unknowns. This time this Elizabeth is married
to Thomas Lumley, 4th Lord Lumley. Grace and Elizabeth have an
ominous footnote: Pour Grace, voir C.Ross, "Edward IV" (London, 1974)
page 316, note 2. Quant a Elisabeth mentionnee dans une genealogie du
XVIe siecle, mais point dans les documents contemporains; sa
filiation demeure donc incertaine.
> end extract
>
> roslyn
>
I am quoting van de Pas' own website, last edited on 31 January,
which you recommended to me in the first place - it is very good and
more dynamic than the others. The article "The illegitimate children
of Edward IV" was by the Society President who has also been a CP
editor and is curious about my dispensation work - the Society line
on Lumleys has definitely evolved in recent years.
Sometimes, offline research leads to a contradiction: Burke's, the CP
and DNB disagree as they did about Thomas Stafford so I had to use my
judgement. Here we have three e-genealogists who have done the same
and reached very similar conclusions.
I shall check the CP when I am next able, because it would outrank
the Cahiers in my mind,but the logical answer is that three e-
genealogists on different continents have used their judgement
separately and are all largely right.
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In
, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i quote..lisle letters V1, life records pg 139
> > > The most likely piece of evidence in support of an early date
> for
> > Arthur's birth is an item in a tailor's bill of 1472, sent by
> Edward
> > IV to the Exchequer for payment in 1477. After a list of garments
> > ordered for 'my Lord the Prince' --that is Edward V--there is the
> > following entry:
> > > Item, for my Lord the Bastard
> > > Item for making of a coat of black velvet 5s.
> > > Item, for making a gown of black velvet 2s
> > > Item, for making a gown of russet velvet 2s.
> > >
> > > C.L. Scofield, Edward IV's most considerable biographer,
> believes
> > that this entry must refer to Arthur Plantagenet...
> >
> > Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
> > have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is
> simply
> > dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The
items
> > for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of
satin
> &
> > velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
> > certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
> > Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were
> probably
> > being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray,
which
> > took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
> > Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur
> because
> > she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
> > 1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of
Edward's
> > whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the
> case
> > that they are the same person, however. Life was precarious and
> > anything may have happened to this Lord Bastard. Quite apart from
> > infant deaths, just think of the deaths of Anne Mowbray herself,
> > Edward IV's daughter Mary, Richard's son, Prince Arthur Tudor and
> so
> > on.
> > It is, anyway, hardly likely that all these affairs of Edward's
had
> > produced only one male child. Just how obscure the lives of some
of
> > his bastard children were may be demonstrated by the mysterious
> > Grace, 'bastard daughter of King Edward', who accompanied
Elizabeth
> > Woodville's funeral barge from Bermondsey to Windsor and is known
> of
> > from no other source.
> > So the Lord Bastard was by no means necessarily Arthur, but even
if
> > he was, all this would show is that he was born by, say 1474.
> >
> > >
> > > end quote
> > > it appears, arthur being born in the 1460's is not byrne's
> > invention.
> > > byrne also discusses, elizabeth lucy, jane shore and eleanor
> > talbot as possible mothers of arthur. also byrne writes a few
pages
> > later that the garments ordered were very likely for the funeral
of
> > princess margaret.
> > >
> > > i can see how you got 1478 for the tailor's bill of
> 1472...i've
> > a passion for little details...and an almost photographic
> > memory..although some days since i passed the half century
mark..i
> do
> > have my "senior" moments...you made me pull my book out..:-))
> >
> > I think I've explained this above - remember that "1477" ran from
> 26
> > March 1477 to 25 March 1478. I don't have Scofield to hand, only
> the
> > notes I made, so I can't positively verify that there was no
> > reference to 1472, but I was careful to note down any reference
to
> > date, particularly as I already knew you dated this to 1472. Is
it
> > possible that you misread 1477 as 1472?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > anyhow, your response to katy made it through to me..i'm
> noticing
> > some glitching/slow postings on the forum. i get to see a
response
> to
> > what i've posted..before what i posted is coming back to
> > me...ah..time warps..ya gotta love em.
> > >
> > > so..i guess were back to square one..who is my lord bastard in
> > 1472?
> > > was it arthur, edward of wigmore, or some other unknown male
> > illegit.
> > > roslyn
> >
> > The evidence for the existence of Edward of Wigmore is even later
> > than the evidence for Arthur being Lady Lucy's son. It was
> a 'family
> > tradition' told to by Hugh Ross Williamson in the 1960s.
> >
> So lets examine the facts and probabilities.
>
> FACTS: Arthur existed. He died in 1542 just after being acquitted
of
> treason.
>
> THE ELDERLY: PH believes him to be about 80 but at least 71 at the
> time. His cousin the Countess was 67/68 at her execution and quite
> fit until shortly before it.
>
> PROBABILITIES: The corpse found at the priory is almost certainly
> (99%) that of Lady Eleanor and the evidence at the site would
> preclude her from having had children. We need to look elsewhere
for
> Arthur's mother, also because he would otherwise have been
legitimate
> and because she died much earlier than the other candidate.
>
> SO WHO WAS SHE: The Ricardian articles "The illegitimate children
of
> Edward IV" (PH) and "The Elusive Mistress" (JA-H) plus the Lumley-
> Conyers dispensation of 1489 (which I shall see in the original
> format soon), identify one mistress who died before 1487 and
probably
> before 1482 as Elizabeth Lucy nee Wayte.
> "The illegitimate children" calls Arthur the only proven one,
> although the significance of the dispensation and my elimination of
> other connections necessitating it, has surely added Lady Lumley to
> the list.
>
> THEREFORE: The simplest possible solution to satisfy all the known
> facts (Occam's Razor) is that Lady Lumley and Arthur had one and
the
> same mother. Any alternative requires unnecessary complication or
the
> overturning of a fact or "99% fact".
> If "Edward of Wigmore" existed and the tradition is that he died
> young at the sime time as his mother then it is very probably true -

> just as if hundreds of people witnessed the Earl of Warwick's
> beheading then it almost certainly was the Earl of Warwick being
> beheaded, Prince Louis dying in prison in 1795?, Dmitri of Russia
> dying in c. 1500, Anastasia in 1918, Edward II who suffered from
that
> poker, Harold II who died at Hastings. If any of the myths
> surrounding these people are true then I need to see more evidence.
>
> But doesn't our Society exist to dispute erroneous "facts"? No, we
> exist to challenge people's things that a lot of people assume to
be
> facts. That is very different. Even significant members had
> assumptions about Margaret of Salisbury and the Staffords, which I
> hope a yellow booklet has been able to dispel.
> Just try a little logic.
>
> Finally, my three preferred websites say:
> (TOMPSETT): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters two of whom are not
> clickable. Possibly identified with Elizabeth Shore.
> (CASTELLI): Born 1461, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full sister
of
> Lady Lumley and father of three daughters. Frances, the youngest,
> married secondly Thomas Monck and had six children. Whilst
> provisionally attributing two children to Lady Eleanor, he quotes
the
> forensic evidence surrounding the Priory corpse which questions
this.
> (VAN DE PAS): {This was my original source for tracing his link to
> General Monck}. Born c. 1462, son of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy), full
> sister of Lady Lumley and father of three daughters - the rest is a
> File on this Forum.
>
> So either they have all guessed incorrectly or deduced correctly.
> Which is the more likely?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

>
> Well, there are a few things about this note in Scofield, which I
> have also studied. Firstly, it makes no mention of 1472, it is
simply
> dated 1477 (you wouldn't get two dates like that anyway). The items
> for 'the Lord Bastard', as you say, come after a long list of satin
&
> velvet garments for 'the Lord Prince'. 'My Lord Prince' is almost
> certainly not Edward V, who was away with his own household at
> Ludlow, but Richard Duke of York. In fact, the garments were
probably
> being ordered for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray, which
> took place in January 1478 (1477 old style).
> Secondly, Scofield believed this Lord Bastard must be Arthur
because
> she, like everyone else, had accepted Arthur's Lucy maternity and
> 1460s birth, and because Arthur is the only bastard son of Edward's
> whose adult career can now be traced. It is not necessarily the
case
> that they are the same person, however.


I wonder if "my lord Bastard" could have been Richard's bastard son
John. We don't know just when John was born, but could he have been
at court at that time and attending Prince Richard's wedding? Was
Richard (Gloucester) there?

Katy

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
Eleanor did *not* enter a nunnery. She was
> a Third Order Franciscan, which is a sort of "Territorial Army" live-
> in-the-world membership open then (and now) to devout lay people. She
> is buried in a *male* friary. *If* the skeleton presumed to be her is
> her, and that is not 100% sure, she had no children.


I can't resist throwing this monkey wrench into the discussion: I am
fairly sure, without having read the report, that the reason the
forensic examiner concluded that the female skeleton thought to be
Eleanor Butler was that of a woman who had never given birth is that
the skeleton's symphisis pelvis was not separated. The symphisis
pelvis is the front of the pelvis, where the two halves come together.
At a certain age, in a female, they fuse lightly, which is one way a
girl's age can be determined. When a woman gives birth, the two
halves of the pelvis are forced slightly apart at the symphisius
(meeting place)as the baby moves through the birth canal. They never
quite fuse again.

That is about the only evidence of having given birth that would be
found in skeletal remains.

However, obviously, this would only happen if the baby was of
sufficient size. A miscarriage or very premature baby could well not
cause the symphsis pelvis to separate. Just how large a premature
baby, with its soft skull, could be born without causing the tell-tale
anatomcal change would depend on how large the woman's pelvis and birth
canal were to begin with.

So I don't think it can be said quite so certainly that the owner of
the skeleton in question had never borne a child, just that she never
had borne a child that, in those days, was likely to be viable.

Since we're interested in children who did survive birth, this isn't
all that germane, but I thought I'd bring it up.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> tompsett is not a genealogist. the site is to test a computer
program. experienced genealogists do not consider that site a
reliable source. they scoff at it as much as the AFN files provided
by the LDS.
>
> tudor place has many errors...but definitely supplies good notes
and commentary.
>
> leo is the best/most trust worthy of the three. and he makes
errors too.
> even cp has its errors. chris phillips medieval webpages have the
known/found corrections.
> burkes is more error prone than cp.
> cashiers has more obscure and european lines..which is why leo
likes it.


We must be wary of circular references, when doing research.
Sometimes what appears to be half a dozen authorities all confirming
some piece of information can turn out to be a bunch of people all
citing each other and cribbing off the same source.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> marie, i know you have access to the life record's of arthur by
byrne.
>
> i made only one error in quoting/transcribing the info from the
lisle letters. i missed a comma after "item".
>
> my eyesight may be bad, but i'm not blindly stupid.

Hi. Since my last post does seem to have gone astray, Roslyn I'm
sorry if you took it the wrong way. I'm not suggesting you're stupid
at all but we have two different versions of what is in Scofield re
the Lord Bastard's clothes. The only notes I have on this are the
copy in my Sent folder of the email I sent you last April after I'd
copied the details from Scofield for you on a library visit. I
rechecked this before I posted. It gives the year as 1477 and no
prices against the items. So I presume you have the details
independently of this.
I do plan to look at Scofield again next library visit so I'll
recheck exactly what's there. To err is human. There's nobody in the
world who doesn't make mistakes - I know as I've spent my life
correcting them for money! One the two of us has slipped up here, so
I'd rather there was no implication of stupidity.
No one gets it right all the time. I don't personally think John A-H
is right about Lady Lucy but that doesn't make him stupid either. If
you start with the assumption (which everybody has done) that a Wayte-
Lucy marriage existed, then he's made the best possible supposition
for which families it involved. Certainly his DNA work is very
exiting and looks as if it will move Ricardian studies a lot further
forward. It's only if the basic Wayte=Lucy assumption is set aside
that J A-H's inability to find any actual evidence, either of a
marriage or of a working relationship between the two families,
starts to look as if it's trying to tell us something.

On Lady Lumley, hicks writes (Edward V, p.30):-
". . . Margaret, natural daughter of Edwasrd IV, who was married to
Sir Thomas Lumley by 1480, when 'our most dread prince and lord King
Edward IV' induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence.25"

I don't think it's outlandish to question a tradition that was so
late in starting, which gives Arthur such a puzzlingly late career,
and which there is nothing in the contemporary record to support,
however long it has been accepted. That's what we're all doing on
this forum in the first place, isn't it?

Note 25 references PRO DURH 3/54/22 m.8. PRO now TNA of course.
I've checked in the TNA online catalogue, and PRO DURH/3/24 is a
patent roll from period 1476-83.

Anyway, that's me done with this subject. Best to all of you,

Marie

Sorry, the post below went a bit haywire. The section giving Hicks'
info on Lady Lumley was supposed to read:-


(Edward V, p.30):-
". . . Margaret (not Elizabeth, as wrongly reported from the 1530s
on), natural daughter of Edwasrd IV, who was married to Sir Thomas
Lumley by 1480, when 'our most dread prince and lord King Edward IV'
induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence.25"

Note 25 references PRO DURH 3/54/22 m.8. PRO now TNA of course.

I've checked in the TNA online catalogue, and PRO DURH/3/24 is a
patent roll from period 1476-83.




--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > marie, i know you have access to the life record's of arthur by
> byrne.
> >
> > i made only one error in quoting/transcribing the info from the
> lisle letters. i missed a comma after "item".
> >
> > my eyesight may be bad, but i'm not blindly stupid.
>
> Hi. Since my last post does seem to have gone astray, Roslyn I'm
> sorry if you took it the wrong way. I'm not suggesting you're
stupid
> at all but we have two different versions of what is in Scofield re
> the Lord Bastard's clothes. The only notes I have on this are the
> copy in my Sent folder of the email I sent you last April after
I'd
> copied the details from Scofield for you on a library visit. I
> rechecked this before I posted. It gives the year as 1477 and no
> prices against the items. So I presume you have the details
> independently of this.
> I do plan to look at Scofield again next library visit so I'll
> recheck exactly what's there. To err is human. There's nobody in
the
> world who doesn't make mistakes - I know as I've spent my life
> correcting them for money! One the two of us has slipped up here,
so
> I'd rather there was no implication of stupidity.
> No one gets it right all the time. I don't personally think John A-
H
> is right about Lady Lucy but that doesn't make him stupid either.
If
> you start with the assumption (which everybody has done) that a
Wayte-
> Lucy marriage existed, then he's made the best possible supposition
> for which families it involved. Certainly his DNA work is very
> exiting and looks as if it will move Ricardian studies a lot
further
> forward. It's only if the basic Wayte=Lucy assumption is set aside
> that J A-H's inability to find any actual evidence, either of a
> marriage or of a working relationship between the two families,
> starts to look as if it's trying to tell us something.
>
> On Lady Lumley, hicks writes (Edward V, p.30):-
> ". . . Margaret, natural daughter of Edwasrd IV, who was married to
> Sir Thomas Lumley by 1480, when 'our most dread prince and lord
King
> Edward IV' induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence.25"
>
> I don't think it's outlandish to question a tradition that was so
> late in starting, which gives Arthur such a puzzlingly late career,
> and which there is nothing in the contemporary record to support,
> however long it has been accepted. That's what we're all doing on
> this forum in the first place, isn't it?
>
> Note 25 references PRO DURH 3/54/22 m.8. PRO now TNA of course.
> I've checked in the TNA online catalogue, and PRO DURH/3/24 is a
> patent roll from period 1476-83.
>
> Anyway, that's me done with this subject. Best to all of you,
>
> Marie
>

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

> Anyway, that's me done with this subject. Best to all of you,
>
> Marie



Wait -- before you go, Marie, would you comment on my question re
whether the "my lord Bastard" who got a nice set of duds made for him
in 1477, presumably for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray,
could be Richard's bastard son John?

Katy

actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard wouldn't have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't formally his until after the marriage.

e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay the bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a dark mark on your credit rating.

anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No. 8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.

e5 would be the prince who had garments ordered for him. he was age 2ish.
john is said to be born before r3 marriage to anne...BUT, would the groom bring his illegit child to his wedding?..so we're still at a possibility of arthur was born in the 1460s.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:

> Anyway, that's me done with this subject. Best to all of you,
>
> Marie

Wait -- before you go, Marie, would you comment on my question re
whether the "my lord Bastard" who got a nice set of duds made for him
in 1477, presumably for Prince Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray,
could be Richard's bastard son John?

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john
illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard wouldn't
have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't
formally his until after the marriage.
>
> e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps
as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay the
bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a dark
mark on your credit rating.
>
> anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No.
8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.

I've found this on the TNA catalogue with a bit of difficulty. It
belongs to series E (for Exchequer) - there is no series KRE, at
least in the modern catalogue. Will I be shot if I suggest the
correct reference at the time (whether Byrne cited it correctly I
can't say) would have been PRO E 101/412, No 8, m.3? (Why m.3, you'll
see below.)

Anyhow, the details are as followS, cut and pasted from the TNA
website so there's no room for doubt:-

Piece details E 101/412/8
Scope and content Warrant relating to the discharge of an account of
George Lovekyn for clothes, with the said account annexed.
Covering dates 17 Edward IV.
Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure before
FOI Act: 30 years
Note 3 ms.
Held by The National Archives, Kew

You'll see that the date is 17 Edward IV - 1477-8 - and there is a
further problem with the Byrne ref as the TNA catalogue states that
the item only runs to 3 membranes.

Anyone sufficiently interested could, of course, order a copy using
the online ordering service.

I'm not so sure this Lord Bastard would be John of Gloucester. To
really be sure, one would have to view the whole item. If there were
clothes ordered for Gloucester, then there might have been clothes
ordered for his bastard son as well. You could probably also tell a
lot from the order people appear in. My gut feeling still is that
these clothes would have been ordered in 1477 for the Mowbray wedding
and that this probably isn't Richard's bastard son. For Edward's
bastard to attend on his own legitimate son was fine, but for
Richard's bastard to walk in the procession without Richard's
legitimate son - I dunno. I still feel anyone researching this should
just get in there and order the document.

Over & really out,

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john
> illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard
wouldn't
> have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't
> formally his until after the marriage.
> >
> > e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps
> as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay
the
> bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a
dark
> mark on your credit rating.
> >
> > anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No.
> 8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.
>
> I've found this on the TNA catalogue with a bit of difficulty. It
> belongs to series E (for Exchequer) - there is no series KRE, at
> least in the modern catalogue. Will I be shot if I suggest the
> correct reference at the time (whether Byrne cited it correctly I
> can't say) would have been PRO E 101/412, No 8, m.3? (Why m.3,
you'll
> see below.)

Sorry, my muddled posts again. It was Item 8, not membrane 8, wasn't
it - it says m.3 anyway. Sor-ree.

This is getting to be like Hamlet's death. . .

the K might = Kew, where the PRO office is.

R maybe Royal or Record
E=exchange or something. i know that kew became pro around the same time i started researching...with more experienced genealogists referring to it as kew...baffling the newbies to research when told to check the kew, vs check the pro.

the date of the record is simply when it was filed/assessioned into the records..it does not mean that the bill could be not be dated in 1472.

do you have some experience with byrne getting her source info incorrect?

to what benefit would it be for her to invent 1472 as a year of purchase of the clothing, if she continues and cites 1477 as the date of payment for the bill?

the only thing i can see as a possible benefit would be make jane shore a more likely candidate for arthur's mother..as she took up with e4 circa 1475. her divorice from shore was in 1476, and e4 offered him a protection via a patent roll in 1476...so if byrne was trying to extend arthur's birthday into bef. 1472..she'd be found out, sooner or later. i can't see a reason that she'd put her professional reputation on the line in an academic publication.

i also looked at your april email...the byrne KRE reference is the same as the source you cited with regards to scofield.
Source Accounts, etc (Exchequer K.R.), bundle 412, no. 8.

only the byrne reference appears a bit more complete.

and..now we have it. K.ew R.oyal E. xchequer.
vs exchange, as i guessed in the beginning of this reponse.

i'll wait for the record until get to london..however if someone wants to pop into pro/kew..they can see the record for free. or you or someone else can check the scofield source..vol 2, p56 and let us know if the 1472 date is also mentioned.

i do agree..knowing the full extent of the tailor's bill could help us identify who may or may not have been at the 1472 event and even the possible date of gathering...and i bet dollars to donuts it would have been for richard and anne's marriage vs margaret's funeral.

one didn't want to delay burial for too long, and one prepared lavishly for a wedding.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john
illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard wouldn't
have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't
formally his until after the marriage.
>
> e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps
as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay the
bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a dark
mark on your credit rating.
>
> anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No.
8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.

I've found this on the TNA catalogue with a bit of difficulty. It
belongs to series E (for Exchequer) - there is no series KRE, at
least in the modern catalogue. Will I be shot if I suggest the
correct reference at the time (whether Byrne cited it correctly I
can't say) would have been PRO E 101/412, No 8, m.3? (Why m.3, you'll
see below.)

Anyhow, the details are as followS, cut and pasted from the TNA
website so there's no room for doubt:-

Piece details E 101/412/8
Scope and content Warrant relating to the discharge of an account of
George Lovekyn for clothes, with the said account annexed.
Covering dates 17 Edward IV.
Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure before
FOI Act: 30 years
Note 3 ms.
Held by The National Archives, Kew

You'll see that the date is 17 Edward IV - 1477-8 - and there is a
further problem with the Byrne ref as the TNA catalogue states that
the item only runs to 3 membranes.

Anyone sufficiently interested could, of course, order a copy using
the online ordering service.

I'm not so sure this Lord Bastard would be John of Gloucester. To
really be sure, one would have to view the whole item. If there were
clothes ordered for Gloucester, then there might have been clothes
ordered for his bastard son as well. You could probably also tell a
lot from the order people appear in. My gut feeling still is that
these clothes would have been ordered in 1477 for the Mowbray wedding
and that this probably isn't Richard's bastard son. For Edward's
bastard to attend on his own legitimate son was fine, but for
Richard's bastard to walk in the procession without Richard's
legitimate son - I dunno. I still feel anyone researching this should
just get in there and order the document.

Over & really out,

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the K might = Kew, where the PRO office is.
>
> R maybe Royal or Record
> E=exchange or something. i know that kew became pro around the
same time i started researching...with more experienced genealogists
referring to it as kew...baffling the newbies to research when told
to check the kew, vs check the pro.
>
> the date of the record is simply when it was filed/assessioned
into the records..it does not mean that the bill could be not be
dated in 1472.
>
> do you have some experience with byrne getting her source info
incorrect?
>
> to what benefit would it be for her to invent 1472 as a year of
purchase of the clothing, if she continues and cites 1477 as the date
of payment for the bill?
>
> the only thing i can see as a possible benefit would be make jane
shore a more likely candidate for arthur's mother..as she took up
with e4 circa 1475. her divorice from shore was in 1476, and e4
offered him a protection via a patent roll in 1476...so if byrne was
trying to extend arthur's birthday into bef. 1472..she'd be found
out, sooner or later. i can't see a reason that she'd put her
professional reputation on the line in an academic publication.
>
> i also looked at your april email...the byrne KRE reference is
the same as the source you cited with regards to scofield.
> Source Accounts, etc (Exchequer K.R.), bundle 412, no. 8.
>
> only the byrne reference appears a bit more complete.
>
> and..now we have it. K.ew R.oyal E. xchequer.
> vs exchange, as i guessed in the beginning of this reponse.
>
> i'll wait for the record until get to london..however if someone
wants to pop into pro/kew..they can see the record for free. or you
or someone else can check the scofield source..vol 2, p56 and let us
know if the 1472 date is also mentioned.
>
> i do agree..knowing the full extent of the tailor's bill could
help us identify who may or may not have been at the 1472 event and
even the possible date of gathering...and i bet dollars to donuts it
would have been for richard and anne's marriage vs margaret's funeral.
>
> one didn't want to delay burial for too long, and one prepared
lavishly for a wedding.
>
> roslyn
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john
> illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard
wouldn't
> have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't
> formally his until after the marriage.
> >
> > e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps
> as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay
the
> bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a
dark
> mark on your credit rating.
> >
> > anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No.
> 8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.
>
> I've found this on the TNA catalogue with a bit of difficulty. It
> belongs to series E (for Exchequer) - there is no series KRE, at
> least in the modern catalogue. Will I be shot if I suggest the
> correct reference at the time (whether Byrne cited it correctly I
> can't say) would have been PRO E 101/412, No 8, m.3? (Why m.3,
you'll
> see below.)
>
> Anyhow, the details are as followS, cut and pasted from the TNA
> website so there's no room for doubt:-
>
> Piece details E 101/412/8
> Scope and content Warrant relating to the discharge of an account
of
> George Lovekyn for clothes, with the said account annexed.
> Covering dates 17 Edward IV.
> Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure before
> FOI Act: 30 years
> Note 3 ms.
> Held by The National Archives, Kew
>
> You'll see that the date is 17 Edward IV - 1477-8 - and there is a
> further problem with the Byrne ref as the TNA catalogue states that
> the item only runs to 3 membranes.
>
> Anyone sufficiently interested could, of course, order a copy using
> the online ordering service.
>
> I'm not so sure this Lord Bastard would be John of Gloucester. To
> really be sure, one would have to view the whole item. If there
were
> clothes ordered for Gloucester, then there might have been clothes
> ordered for his bastard son as well. You could probably also tell a
> lot from the order people appear in. My gut feeling still is that
> these clothes would have been ordered in 1477 for the Mowbray
wedding
> and that this probably isn't Richard's bastard son. For Edward's
> bastard to attend on his own legitimate son was fine, but for
> Richard's bastard to walk in the procession without Richard's
> legitimate son - I dunno. I still feel anyone researching this
should
> just get in there and order the document.
>
> Over & really out,
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am re-examining several sources here because of the obvious
conflict of evidence and the CP (vol. XIV, "Addenda and
Corrigenda",p.443) gives a tailor's (George Lovekyn) accounts of 1471
from Anne F. Sutton in "Costume" (1981, no.15, p.11), deducing a
birthdate of c.1470.
The original CP (vol. VIII, pp.63 on) had no estimated date of birth
but confirms the descent of General Monck, created Duke of Albemarle
on the Restoration, as descended from one of his three daughters (see
my file).
I shall check the "Elusive Mistress" again but am wary of a foreign
primary source being used for a birth in England to two English
parents. Similarly, the unsolved mystery of Richard de la Pole's
putative progeny is best dealt with by French or Italian primary
sources because he lived his adult, and possible progenitive, years
in exile.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > the K might = Kew, where the PRO office is.
> >
> > R maybe Royal or Record
> > E=exchange or something. i know that kew became pro around the
> same time i started researching...with more experienced
genealogists
> referring to it as kew...baffling the newbies to research when told
> to check the kew, vs check the pro.
> >
> > the date of the record is simply when it was filed/assessioned
> into the records..it does not mean that the bill could be not be
> dated in 1472.
> >
> > do you have some experience with byrne getting her source info
> incorrect?
> >
> > to what benefit would it be for her to invent 1472 as a year of
> purchase of the clothing, if she continues and cites 1477 as the
date
> of payment for the bill?
> >
> > the only thing i can see as a possible benefit would be make
jane
> shore a more likely candidate for arthur's mother..as she took up
> with e4 circa 1475. her divorice from shore was in 1476, and e4
> offered him a protection via a patent roll in 1476...so if byrne
was
> trying to extend arthur's birthday into bef. 1472..she'd be found
> out, sooner or later. i can't see a reason that she'd put her
> professional reputation on the line in an academic publication.
> >
> > i also looked at your april email...the byrne KRE reference is
> the same as the source you cited with regards to scofield.
> > Source Accounts, etc (Exchequer K.R.), bundle 412, no. 8.
> >
> > only the byrne reference appears a bit more complete.
> >
> > and..now we have it. K.ew R.oyal E. xchequer.
> > vs exchange, as i guessed in the beginning of this reponse.
> >
> > i'll wait for the record until get to london..however if
someone
> wants to pop into pro/kew..they can see the record for free. or you
> or someone else can check the scofield source..vol 2, p56 and let
us
> know if the 1472 date is also mentioned.
> >
> > i do agree..knowing the full extent of the tailor's bill could
> help us identify who may or may not have been at the 1472 event and
> even the possible date of gathering...and i bet dollars to donuts
it
> would have been for richard and anne's marriage vs margaret's
funeral.
> >
> > one didn't want to delay burial for too long, and one prepared
> lavishly for a wedding.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@> wrote:
> > --- In , fayre
rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > actually katy..it is possible that the clothes were for john
> > illegit of ric3. ric and anne were married in 1472. richard
> wouldn't
> > have a pocket full of coin at that time. anne's estates weren't
> > formally his until after the marriage.
> > >
> > > e4 may have outfitted the wedding party..i.e r3's son...perhaps
> > as a gift..and he and r3 then disputed over who was going to pay
> the
> > bill..which is why it took five years...boy talk about putting a
> dark
> > mark on your credit rating.
> > >
> > > anyhow, byrne refers to Accounts Exchequer K.R. E. 101/412, No.
> > 8, m.3 as her source for the 1472 bill, paid in 1477.
> >
> > I've found this on the TNA catalogue with a bit of difficulty. It
> > belongs to series E (for Exchequer) - there is no series KRE, at
> > least in the modern catalogue. Will I be shot if I suggest the
> > correct reference at the time (whether Byrne cited it correctly I
> > can't say) would have been PRO E 101/412, No 8, m.3? (Why m.3,
> you'll
> > see below.)
> >
> > Anyhow, the details are as followS, cut and pasted from the TNA
> > website so there's no room for doubt:-
> >
> > Piece details E 101/412/8
> > Scope and content Warrant relating to the discharge of an account
> of
> > George Lovekyn for clothes, with the said account annexed.
> > Covering dates 17 Edward IV.
> > Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure
before
> > FOI Act: 30 years
> > Note 3 ms.
> > Held by The National Archives, Kew
> >
> > You'll see that the date is 17 Edward IV - 1477-8 - and there is
a
> > further problem with the Byrne ref as the TNA catalogue states
that
> > the item only runs to 3 membranes.
> >
> > Anyone sufficiently interested could, of course, order a copy
using
> > the online ordering service.
> >
> > I'm not so sure this Lord Bastard would be John of Gloucester. To
> > really be sure, one would have to view the whole item. If there
> were
> > clothes ordered for Gloucester, then there might have been
clothes
> > ordered for his bastard son as well. You could probably also tell
a
> > lot from the order people appear in. My gut feeling still is that
> > these clothes would have been ordered in 1477 for the Mowbray
> wedding
> > and that this probably isn't Richard's bastard son. For Edward's
> > bastard to attend on his own legitimate son was fine, but for
> > Richard's bastard to walk in the procession without Richard's
> > legitimate son - I dunno. I still feel anyone researching this
> should
> > just get in there and order the document.
> >
> > Over & really out,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I am re-examining several sources here because of the obvious
> conflict of evidence and the CP (vol. XIV, "Addenda and
> Corrigenda",p.443) gives a tailor's (George Lovekyn) accounts of
1471
> from Anne F. Sutton in "Costume" (1981, no.15, p.11), deducing a
> birthdate of c.1470.
> The original CP (vol. VIII, pp.63 on) had no estimated date of
birth
> but confirms the descent of General Monck, created Duke of
Albemarle
> on the Restoration, as descended from one of his three daughters
(see
> my file).
> I shall check the "Elusive Mistress" again but am wary of a foreign
> primary source being used for a birth in England to two English
> parents. Similarly, the unsolved mystery of Richard de la Pole's
> putative progeny is best dealt with by French or Italian primary
> sources because he lived his adult, and probably progenitive, years
> in exile.
>
I have indeed re-read the article and JA-H quotes Buck, giving
Arthur's birth as 1465-7 and his mother's c.1445 with no reason that
she would have died much before 1482. I see no evidence to the
contrary
Furthermore, just to kill off the possibility of Lady Eleanor being
his mother, his first wife was her great-niece. We may debate his
maternity 540 years later but, given that she was a widow who gave
him her maiden name, Arthur himself surely knew and would not have
married his first cousin once removed, particularly in the days of
dispensations before the Reformation.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
brevity snip..
> > >
> > I am re-examining several sources here because of the obvious
> > conflict of evidence and the CP (vol. XIV, "Addenda and
> > Corrigenda",p.443) gives a tailor's (George Lovekyn) accounts of
> 1471
> > from Anne F. Sutton in "Costume" (1981, no.15, p.11), deducing a
> > birthdate of c.1470.
> > The original CP (vol. VIII, pp.63 on) had no estimated date of
> birth
> > but confirms the descent of General Monck, created Duke of
> Albemarle
> > on the Restoration, as descended from one of his three daughters
> (see
> > my file).
> > I shall check the "Elusive Mistress" again but am wary of a
foreign
> > primary source being used for a birth in England to two English
> > parents. Similarly, the unsolved mystery of Richard de la Pole's
> > putative progeny is best dealt with by French or Italian primary
> > sources because he lived his adult, and probably progenitive,
years
> > in exile.
> >
> I have indeed re-read the article and JA-H quotes Buck, giving
> Arthur's birth as 1465-7 and his mother's c.1445 with no reason
that
> she would have died much before 1482. I see no evidence to the
> contrary
> Furthermore, just to kill off the possibility of Lady Eleanor being
> his mother, his first wife was her great-niece. We may debate his
> maternity 540 years later but, given that she was a widow who gave
> him her maiden name, Arthur himself surely knew and would not have
> married his first cousin once removed, particularly in the days of
> dispensations before the Reformation.

1. dispensations were not always sought. to divorice or annull a
marriage you would need to apply..but not to marry. this is one
reason the calling of banns was brought to law.

2. arthur, illegit son of a dead king, unless lands were granted to
him by his father before death, or so other kindly relative he was
landless, and could only survive by the good grace of patrons. his
wife was an heiress..she had landholdings. arthur was a male
nobody..albeit very likeable..he was a nobody..no lands, no power.

3. cousin or other near kin/relatives marriages are/were not unheard
of.

and since you brought up buck..i found this website a couple of days
ago.
http://www.richardiii.net/r3%20controv%20historians.htm
it says....
Buck not only made use of documentary sources, he cited them so that
others could evaluate their validity. He was the first to use the
evidence of the Crowland Chronicle, and of Titulus Regius, a very
different approach from the `men say that ...' gossip which peppers
the moralising fabrications of the Tudors. From Crowland and Titulus
Regius he discovered that it had been Lady Eleanor Butler (née
Talbot) whom Bishop Stillington said he had married to Edward IV, not
the lower-born Elizabeth Lucy of More's account. This put a totally
different slant on the story of the pre-contract. As Buck says, when
the Duchess of York exhorted and urged her son to acknowledge his
first wife and not marry Elizabeth [Woodville], Lady Grey, she was
not speaking of `the daughter of one Wayte, of Southampton, a mean
gentleman, if he were one' but `the daughter of a great peer of this
realm, a man of most noble and illustrious family', `a fair and
virtuous lady'. It was altogether more plausible that Lady Eleanor
had insisted on a contract of marriage than that the king's `witty
concubine' had done so.

now..in all fairness..i have NOT read buck to be able to
intelligently/solidly comment on what buck thought/said/wrote..i can
only go by these secondary sources at this time.

the writer of the buck bio, seems to be implying that the duchess of
york..who asked about lady lucy's child..was eleanor talbot...ergo
eleanor talbot/boteler had a child..and sweet cis knew...more
research/time will out the truth.

right now it is all theory based on hints/clues and leads...and
speaking of such..
it is very likely eleanor talbot and thomas butler/boteler met in
1446, and definitely their fathers met on feb 5 1446 at westminster.
oh and e4's dad was there too. they were signing/witnessing documents.

John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury, royal chancellor; William
Alnwick, bishop of Lincoln; William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury;
Adam Moleyns, bishop of Chichester, keeper of the privy seal;
Humphrey of Lancaster, duke of Gloucester; Richard Plantagenet, duke
of York; Edmund Beaufort, marquess of Dorset; William de la Pole,
marquess of Suffolk; Richard Nevill, earl of Salisbury; John Talbot,
earl of Shrewsbury; Ralph Cromwell; Ralph Botiller, royal treasurer

in fact given the signatories..it looks like a who's who list..and
there may have been a huge candlemass or pre-lent gathering of the
lords spiritual and temporal to A. do business, B. party.

so ellie may have met her future husband at the same time..she was
definitely of marriage/betrothal age..about 10 or 11.
roslyn

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the K might = Kew, where the PRO office is.
>
> R maybe Royal or Record
> E=exchange or something. i know that kew became pro around the
same time i started researching...with more experienced genealogists
referring to it as kew...baffling the newbies to research when told
to check the kew, vs check the pro.
>
> the date of the record is simply when it was filed/assessioned
into the records..it does not mean that the bill could be not be
dated in 1472.
>
> do you have some experience with byrne getting her source info
incorrect?

I do have some experience with Byrne making assertions for which she
gives no source and which appear highly dubious. I think it is
extremely important to differentiate between information which
appears in the published Lisle Letters themselves, which is a primary
source for the history of the period they were written, and a
borderline primary source for the family's 15th century origins (in
so far as they address this at all), between that and the background
history provided by Byrne, which is just the normal secondary-type
source - ie what some historian has got published.
Probably I was unfair and the reference was correct for the time,
although K definitely isn't Kew - the PRO only moved out to Kew a
very few years ago, and shortly after that changed its name to the
National archives. Perhaps K stood for King's?
>
> to what benefit would it be for her to invent 1472 as a year of
purchase of the clothing, if she continues and cites 1477 as the date
of payment for the bill?

I don't know, Roslyn. suggested that she did not refer to 1472, you
claimed Byrne. The rest of the forum could do with the full quotation
from Byrne - I can't quite follow what is meant by payment of the
bill, as this seems to be an internal order for clothes to be made by
a government department (the Wardrobe). I stand by my earlier
statement that anyone seriously relying on this as evidence of a lord
bastard able to attend events in 1472 would need to study the
original document for themselves. It's a shame to have to say it, but
anyone who has made a habit of checking original documents like this
has all too often had the experience of finding they don't say what
the historian who cited them claimed they said (and very often what
umpteen historians copying them have since repeated). There doesn't
have to have been a benefit to them - any book covers a lot of
ground, and mistakes get made. Of course, sometimes the documents do
say what was claimed however weird it may have seemed, but checking
is a laborious process which should really be gone through for any
key document. This is why historians cite their sources.
One thing which often happened in medieval docs, with numbers almost
always being given in roman numerals, was that a letter got missed
from, or added to, the string. Just worth bearing in mind that 1477
would have been MCCCCLxxvij, and 1472 would have been MCCCCLxxij. It
may be nothing more than Byrne attempting to make sense of the year
being cited twice, once as MCCCCxxvij, and once as MCCCCLxxij (I've
seen this sort of thing happen on more than once occasion too). I
know you are planning to research in England eventually, but you may
find you have a lot more to look through than you can handle when
that day comes, and a 3-membrane document would probably be quite
cheap to order.
>
> the only thing i can see as a possible benefit would be make jane
shore a more likely candidate for arthur's mother..as she took up
with e4 circa 1475. her divorice from shore was in 1476, and e4
offered him a protection via a patent roll in 1476...so if byrne was
trying to extend arthur's birthday into bef. 1472..she'd be found
out, sooner or later. i can't see a reason that she'd put her
professional reputation on the line in an academic publication.
>
> i also looked at your april email...the byrne KRE reference is
the same as the source you cited with regards to scofield.
> Source Accounts, etc (Exchequer K.R.), bundle 412, no. 8.
>
> only the byrne reference appears a bit more complete.
>
> and..now we have it. K.ew R.oyal E. xchequer.
> vs exchange, as i guessed in the beginning of this reponse.

Well, not Kew.

>
> i'll wait for the record until get to london..however if someone
wants to pop into pro/kew..they can see the record for free. or you
or someone else can check the scofield source..vol 2, p56 and let us
know if the 1472 date is also mentioned.

I think you've hit a sore spot there, unfortunately. There is no
popping into Kew. The new building is actually really nice, it has a
courtyard around a lake/ square pond complete with swans, huge car
park, but it's about as accessible for most people as the North Pole.
Right on the edge of the London area, and not near public transport.
Even by car it's a bit of a nightmare for anyone unfamiliar with the
area (I've got lost SO many times). To view anything, also, you have
to order and wait for it to be brought up, checking on the computer
which room to access it in.
>
> i do agree..knowing the full extent of the tailor's bill could
help us identify who may or may not have been at the 1472 event and
even the possible date of gathering...and i bet dollars to donuts it
would have been for richard and anne's marriage vs margaret's funeral.

I'd bet donuts that no expenses for richard and Anne's marriage would
be in the Exchequer accounts, but 'tis all speculation at this stage,
isn't it?

Marie

>
> 1. dispensations were not always sought. to divorice or annull a
> marriage you would need to apply..but not to marry. this is one
> reason the calling of banns was brought to law.

Unfortunately, this is not a correct interpretation of the rules. The
calling of banns (which already existed in the 15th century) was
brought in to prevent people marrying in the face of impediments
which would render the marriage invalid, not because a marriage was
valid if an impediment had been kept quiet. If a couple managed to
keep an impediment quiet it would enable them to be recognised as man
and wife so long as it remained secret, but it wouldn't make the
marriage valid. If an impediment existed, the only way the couple
could contract a valid marriage was to obtain a dispensation from it.
The nobility and royalty in particular were extremely careful to
cover their bases because the legitimacy of their heirs depended on
it. I'm afraid I'm with Stephen on this: Arthur's marriage to a close
relative of Eleanor Butler is good evidence that he did not consider
Eleanor to be his mother.


>
> 2. arthur, illegit son of a dead king, unless lands were granted to
> him by his father before death, or so other kindly relative he was
> landless, and could only survive by the good grace of patrons. his
> wife was an heiress..she had landholdings. arthur was a male
> nobody..albeit very likeable..he was a nobody..no lands, no power.
>
> 3. cousin or other near kin/relatives marriages are/were not
unheard
> of.

Indeed, but these marriages took place courtesy of dispensations.

arthur had nothing to inherit from his ancestors, because he was illegit.
because arthur gained his property "on his own" he could dispense with it as he desired.

eliz grey was a widow. her children from her first marriage would and did inherit.

the same goes for arthur's second wife. it was also a second marriage.

not every marriage got a dispensation, even if they should have. often the couple avoided the dispensation "ritual" just incase they really did not want to "stay" married.

even with a dispensation, one or the other could "all of sudden" remember a relative that put the couple in a prohibited degree, giving that as a reason for an annullment/divorice.

not all marriages requested or got a dispensation. AND we don't know if arthur did get one. it could still be in some archive somewhere, or the tudor parchment shredders did their thing.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

>
> 1. dispensations were not always sought. to divorice or annull a
> marriage you would need to apply..but not to marry. this is one
> reason the calling of banns was brought to law.

Unfortunately, this is not a correct interpretation of the rules. The
calling of banns (which already existed in the 15th century) was
brought in to prevent people marrying in the face of impediments
which would render the marriage invalid, not because a marriage was
valid if an impediment had been kept quiet. If a couple managed to
keep an impediment quiet it would enable them to be recognised as man
and wife so long as it remained secret, but it wouldn't make the
marriage valid. If an impediment existed, the only way the couple
could contract a valid marriage was to obtain a dispensation from it.
The nobility and royalty in particular were extremely careful to
cover their bases because the legitimacy of their heirs depended on
it. I'm afraid I'm with Stephen on this: Arthur's marriage to a close
relative of Eleanor Butler is good evidence that he did not consider
Eleanor to be his mother.

>
> 2. arthur, illegit son of a dead king, unless lands were granted to
> him by his father before death, or so other kindly relative he was
> landless, and could only survive by the good grace of patrons. his
> wife was an heiress..she had landholdings. arthur was a male
> nobody..albeit very likeable..he was a nobody..no lands, no power.
>
> 3. cousin or other near kin/relatives marriages are/were not
unheard
> of.

Indeed, but these marriages took place courtesy of dispensations.

k= king's
r = rememberancer
e= exchequer
or so says the list of abbr. in vo. 6.
101= wardrobe accounts.

as i said, you have access to the page/s surrounding this document, and in byrne's words...start reading about half way down p. 139/vol 1.

between my eyesight and lack of typing skills, i'm not going to transcribe the book, nor the page...i also think it might border on copywrite infringement.

AND it is a heck of lot easier for someone in england to pop into kew or any other brit archive, than it is for someone on the west coast of canada..:-))

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the K might = Kew, where the PRO office is.
>
> R maybe Royal or Record
> E=exchange or something. i know that kew became pro around the
same time i started researching...with more experienced genealogists
referring to it as kew...baffling the newbies to research when told
to check the kew, vs check the pro.
>
> the date of the record is simply when it was filed/assessioned
into the records..it does not mean that the bill could be not be
dated in 1472.
>
> do you have some experience with byrne getting her source info
incorrect?

I do have some experience with Byrne making assertions for which she
gives no source and which appear highly dubious. I think it is
extremely important to differentiate between information which
appears in the published Lisle Letters themselves, which is a primary
source for the history of the period they were written, and a
borderline primary source for the family's 15th century origins (in
so far as they address this at all), between that and the background
history provided by Byrne, which is just the normal secondary-type
source - ie what some historian has got published.
Probably I was unfair and the reference was correct for the time,
although K definitely isn't Kew - the PRO only moved out to Kew a
very few years ago, and shortly after that changed its name to the
National archives. Perhaps K stood for King's?
>
> to what benefit would it be for her to invent 1472 as a year of
purchase of the clothing, if she continues and cites 1477 as the date
of payment for the bill?

I don't know, Roslyn. suggested that she did not refer to 1472, you
claimed Byrne. The rest of the forum could do with the full quotation
from Byrne - I can't quite follow what is meant by payment of the
bill, as this seems to be an internal order for clothes to be made by
a government department (the Wardrobe). I stand by my earlier
statement that anyone seriously relying on this as evidence of a lord
bastard able to attend events in 1472 would need to study the
original document for themselves. It's a shame to have to say it, but
anyone who has made a habit of checking original documents like this
has all too often had the experience of finding they don't say what
the historian who cited them claimed they said (and very often what
umpteen historians copying them have since repeated). There doesn't
have to have been a benefit to them - any book covers a lot of
ground, and mistakes get made. Of course, sometimes the documents do
say what was claimed however weird it may have seemed, but checking
is a laborious process which should really be gone through for any
key document. This is why historians cite their sources.
One thing which often happened in medieval docs, with numbers almost
always being given in roman numerals, was that a letter got missed
from, or added to, the string. Just worth bearing in mind that 1477
would have been MCCCCLxxvij, and 1472 would have been MCCCCLxxij. It
may be nothing more than Byrne attempting to make sense of the year
being cited twice, once as MCCCCxxvij, and once as MCCCCLxxij (I've
seen this sort of thing happen on more than once occasion too). I
know you are planning to research in England eventually, but you may
find you have a lot more to look through than you can handle when
that day comes, and a 3-membrane document would probably be quite
cheap to order.
>
> the only thing i can see as a possible benefit would be make jane
shore a more likely candidate for arthur's mother..as she took up
with e4 circa 1475. her divorice from shore was in 1476, and e4
offered him a protection via a patent roll in 1476...so if byrne was
trying to extend arthur's birthday into bef. 1472..she'd be found
out, sooner or later. i can't see a reason that she'd put her
professional reputation on the line in an academic publication.
>
> i also looked at your april email...the byrne KRE reference is
the same as the source you cited with regards to scofield.
> Source Accounts, etc (Exchequer K.R.), bundle 412, no. 8.
>
> only the byrne reference appears a bit more complete.
>
> and..now we have it. K.ew R.oyal E. xchequer.
> vs exchange, as i guessed in the beginning of this reponse.

Well, not Kew.

>
> i'll wait for the record until get to london..however if someone
wants to pop into pro/kew..they can see the record for free. or you
or someone else can check the scofield source..vol 2, p56 and let us
know if the 1472 date is also mentioned.

I think you've hit a sore spot there, unfortunately. There is no
popping into Kew. The new building is actually really nice, it has a
courtyard around a lake/ square pond complete with swans, huge car
park, but it's about as accessible for most people as the North Pole.
Right on the edge of the London area, and not near public transport.
Even by car it's a bit of a nightmare for anyone unfamiliar with the
area (I've got lost SO many times). To view anything, also, you have
to order and wait for it to be brought up, checking on the computer
which room to access it in.
>
> i do agree..knowing the full extent of the tailor's bill could
help us identify who may or may not have been at the 1472 event and
even the possible date of gathering...and i bet dollars to donuts it
would have been for richard and anne's marriage vs margaret's funeral.

I'd bet donuts that no expenses for richard and Anne's marriage would
be in the Exchequer accounts, but 'tis all speculation at this stage,
isn't it?

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> k= king's
> r = rememberancer
> e= exchequer
> or so says the list of abbr. in vo. 6.
> 101= wardrobe accounts.
>
> as i said, you have access to the page/s surrounding this
document, and in byrne's words...start reading about half way down p.
139/vol 1.
>
> between my eyesight and lack of typing skills, i'm not going to
transcribe the book, nor the page...i also think it might border on
copywrite infringement.
>
> AND it is a heck of lot easier for someone in england to pop into
kew or any other brit archive, than it is for someone on the west
coast of canada..:-))

That people often avoided obtaining dispensations doesn't really
agree with what canon-law historians like Helmoholz have to say. We
can't actually know someone didn't have a dispensation unless they
actually went on record as admitting this. Very few of the copies
that came over from Rome to the couple survive (probably families
discarded these after the Reformation). Generally historians have
relied on the volumes of published entries in the papal registers
relating to Britain, but these were compiled at a time when a lot of
the relevant archives were still closed. References to other
dispensations survive in places like bishops' registers, but our
knowledge of pre-Reformation dispensations is still very incomplete.
Hicks seems to have been rather rash in claiming that the failure to
locate a comrehensive dispensation for Richard & Anne means they
never had one, because it turns out that Clarence & Isabel's hasn't
been found in the Vatican archives either though it can be proved
that they had one.

Have you looked to see whether there are surviving dispensation for
Arthur's marriages?


It is certainly true that it is much easier to visit Kew from
somewhere in England than from the West Coast of Canada, but you
don't need to ask a stranger in England to give up any of their
valuable time at Kew - all you need to do is to go to
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk, click on 'Shop Online', then on 'Order
copies of documents'. I do it all the time - I can only get to Kew a
couple of times a year and every minute is precious when I do go.
They email you a couple of weeks later with a quotation, and you
click to order unless the price is too high. You can request the
copies to be made available to download from the website so there
doesn't even have to be any post involved.

when you do come over, what you ideally want is a laptop and a
digital camera to make your own copies.

By the by, a properly referenced quotation from a document doesn't
infringe copyright, though photocopying more than 10% of one does (in
the UK at any rate). I'll look up the page reference you gave when I
get a minute, and post what is relevant.


Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> k= king's
> r = rememberancer
> e= exchequer
> or so says the list of abbr. in vo. 6.
> 101= wardrobe accounts.
>
> as i said, you have access to the page/s surrounding this
document, and in byrne's words...start reading about half way down p.
139/vol 1.
>
> between my eyesight and lack of typing skills, i'm not going to
transcribe the book, nor the page...i also think it might border on
copywrite infringement.
>
> AND it is a heck of lot easier for someone in england to pop into
kew or any other brit archive, than it is for someone on the west
coast of canada..:-))

That people often avoided obtaining dispensations doesn't really
agree with what canon-law historians like Helmoholz have to say. We
can't actually know someone didn't have a dispensation unless they
actually went on record as admitting this.
--------------------
there are records of people who did not have a dispensation, and who have have admitted so. yes, they are few and far between, but they do exist.
no, i don't have any names off the top of my head. but, i do know they exist.
---------
Very few of the copies
that came over from Rome to the couple survive (probably families
discarded these after the Reformation). Generally historians have
relied on the volumes of published entries in the papal registers
relating to Britain, but these were compiled at a time when a lot of
the relevant archives were still closed. References to other
dispensations survive in places like bishops' registers, but our
knowledge of pre-Reformation dispensations is still very incomplete.
Hicks seems to have been rather rash in claiming that the failure to
locate a comrehensive dispensation for Richard & Anne means they
never had one, because it turns out that Clarence & Isabel's hasn't
been found in the Vatican archives either though it can be proved
that they had one.
------------------
i have not read any of hick's work to be able to intelligently comment on any of his thoughts or theories.
------------

Have you looked to see whether there are surviving dispensation for
Arthur's marriages?
---------------
no, i'll do that when i get to england/europe.
---------------------

It is certainly true that it is much easier to visit Kew from
somewhere in England than from the West Coast of Canada, but you
don't need to ask a stranger in England to give up any of their
valuable time at Kew -
-------------
sorry you misinterpretted my comment. i did not ask anyone to go do a look up FOR ME. to be clear..if someone wants to know the info sooner than later, then they are free to go to kew, and do the lookup themselves for free.
btw..in genealogy there are a whole group of people who commit RANDOM ACTS OF GENEALOGICAL KINDNESS...they do DO look ups..without being asked. they share source documents and information, often at significant cost to themselves without requesting repayment.
the philosophy is what goes around, comes around. the more people working and sharing on a project, usually the faster one achieves a goal.

however, i also realise we are in a slightly different forum here..and that there may well be lurkers who would turn discoveries into profit and claim credit for themselves for research they did NOT actually do. therefore, it is sometimes necessary to hold one's cards close until one publishes in a less public and anonymus venue.

------------------------
all you need to do is to go to
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk, click on 'Shop Online', then on 'Order
copies of documents'. I do it all the time - I can only get to Kew a
couple of times a year and every minute is precious when I do go.
They email you a couple of weeks later with a quotation, and you
click to order unless the price is too high. You can request the
copies to be made available to download from the website so there
doesn't even have to be any post involved.
------------------
i am fully cognizant of this option. i chose not to use it at this time.
-------------

when you do come over, what you ideally want is a laptop and a
digital camera to make your own copies.
-----------------
that quite simply is a given. i already have both, however, because of electrical service differences between north america and europe, i may purchase new equipment in england.
--------------------
By the by, a properly referenced quotation from a document doesn't
infringe copyright, though photocopying more than 10% of one does (in
the UK at any rate).
---------------
excuse me..i think when you find the moment to look at page 139, v1, you will find i gave you the full quotation that was relevent to what was being discussed. byrne does go on to postulate her theory afterwards, but it is about three pages long. if you would like to type that info, by all means please feel free.

I'll look up the page reference you gave when I
get a minute, and post what is relevant.

Marie
with all due respect, everyone has their own way of conducting research. you do your thing, and i'll do mine. i do know that for centuries people have been trying to resolve many issues regarding r3. thus far there is a lack of conclusive answers...simply many theories.
as i have stated in the past, many times..i am working on theories, and as i run them to ground, i either verify or debunk them. i am not "emotionally" attached to any of them to the degree that i will defend them to death.
as, i stated, the 1472 purchase of clothes for my lord bastard could be richard's illegit son, john.
and the purchase, contrary to byrne's supposition of the purchase being for arthur to attend princess margaret's funeral, could be for richard and anne's wedding.
to me, at this time..any and all theories are open and on the table, unless solidly refuted or verified.
about the only item i've seen resolved is the identity of "elizabeth lucy" as the mother of the daughter who married lumley.
it is still to be determined who is the mother of arthur. it maybe talbot, it maybe another woman.
roslyn

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > k= king's
> > r = rememberancer
> > e= exchequer
> > or so says the list of abbr. in vo. 6.
> > 101= wardrobe accounts.
> >
> > as i said, you have access to the page/s surrounding this
> document, and in byrne's words...start reading about half way down
p.
> 139/vol 1.
> >
> > between my eyesight and lack of typing skills, i'm not going to
> transcribe the book, nor the page...i also think it might border on
> copywrite infringement.
> >
> > AND it is a heck of lot easier for someone in england to pop into
> kew or any other brit archive, than it is for someone on the west
> coast of canada..:-))
>
> That people often avoided obtaining dispensations doesn't really
> agree with what canon-law historians like Helmoholz have to say. We
> can't actually know someone didn't have a dispensation unless they
> actually went on record as admitting this.
> --------------------
> there are records of people who did not have a dispensation, and
who have have admitted so. yes, they are few and far between, but
they do exist.
> no, i don't have any names off the top of my head. but, i do know
they exist.
> ---------
> Very few of the copies
> that came over from Rome to the couple survive (probably families
> discarded these after the Reformation). Generally historians have
> relied on the volumes of published entries in the papal registers
> relating to Britain, but these were compiled at a time when a lot
of
> the relevant archives were still closed. References to other
> dispensations survive in places like bishops' registers, but our
> knowledge of pre-Reformation dispensations is still very
incomplete.
> Hicks seems to have been rather rash in claiming that the failure
to
> locate a comrehensive dispensation for Richard & Anne means they
> never had one, because it turns out that Clarence & Isabel's hasn't
> been found in the Vatican archives either though it can be proved
> that they had one.
> ------------------
> i have not read any of hick's work to be able to intelligently
comment on any of his thoughts or theories.
> ------------
>
> Have you looked to see whether there are surviving dispensation for
> Arthur's marriages?
> ---------------
> no, i'll do that when i get to england/europe.
> ---------------------
>
> It is certainly true that it is much easier to visit Kew from
> somewhere in England than from the West Coast of Canada, but you
> don't need to ask a stranger in England to give up any of their
> valuable time at Kew -
> -------------
> sorry you misinterpretted my comment. i did not ask anyone to go
do a look up FOR ME. to be clear..if someone wants to know the info
sooner than later, then they are free to go to kew, and do the lookup
themselves for free.
> btw..in genealogy there are a whole group of people who commit
RANDOM ACTS OF GENEALOGICAL KINDNESS...they do DO look ups..without
being asked. they share source documents and information, often at
significant cost to themselves without requesting repayment.
> the philosophy is what goes around, comes around. the more people
working and sharing on a project, usually the faster one achieves a
goal.
>
> however, i also realise we are in a slightly different forum
here..and that there may well be lurkers who would turn discoveries
into profit and claim credit for themselves for research they did NOT
actually do. therefore, it is sometimes necessary to hold one's cards
close until one publishes in a less public and anonymus venue.
>
> ------------------------
> all you need to do is to go to
> www.nationalarchives.gov.uk, click on 'Shop Online', then on 'Order
> copies of documents'. I do it all the time - I can only get to Kew
a
> couple of times a year and every minute is precious when I do go.
> They email you a couple of weeks later with a quotation, and you
> click to order unless the price is too high. You can request the
> copies to be made available to download from the website so there
> doesn't even have to be any post involved.
> ------------------
> i am fully cognizant of this option. i chose not to use it at
this time.
> -------------
>
> when you do come over, what you ideally want is a laptop and a
> digital camera to make your own copies.
> -----------------
> that quite simply is a given. i already have both, however,
because of electrical service differences between north america and
europe, i may purchase new equipment in england.
> --------------------
> By the by, a properly referenced quotation from a document doesn't
> infringe copyright, though photocopying more than 10% of one does
(in
> the UK at any rate).
> ---------------
> excuse me..i think when you find the moment to look at page 139,
v1, you will find i gave you the full quotation that was relevent to
what was being discussed. byrne does go on to postulate her theory
afterwards, but it is about three pages long. if you would like to
type that info, by all means please feel free.
>
> I'll look up the page reference you gave when I
> get a minute, and post what is relevant.
>
> Marie
> with all due respect, everyone has their own way of conducting
research. you do your thing, and i'll do mine. i do know that for
centuries people have been trying to resolve many issues regarding
r3. thus far there is a lack of conclusive answers...simply many
theories.
> as i have stated in the past, many times..i am working on
theories, and as i run them to ground, i either verify or debunk
them. i am not "emotionally" attached to any of them to the degree
that i will defend them to death.
> as, i stated, the 1472 purchase of clothes for my lord bastard
could be richard's illegit son, john.
> and the purchase, contrary to byrne's supposition of the purchase
being for arthur to attend princess margaret's funeral, could be for
richard and anne's wedding.
> to me, at this time..any and all theories are open and on the
table, unless solidly refuted or verified.
> about the only item i've seen resolved is the identity
of "elizabeth lucy" as the mother of the daughter who married lumley.
> it is still to be determined who is the mother of arthur. it
maybe talbot, it maybe another woman.
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
So let us see a little solid evidence about Arthur's maternity - not
Continental gossip.

Is it Elizabeth Waite/ Lady Lucy? More likely than not as she
definitely had Lady Lumley by Edward. 60%.

Is it Eleanor Butler/ Talbot? Almost certainly eliminated because of
the childless corpse at the Priory and that Arthur's wife would have
been his first cousin once removed but no dispensation, unlike
Richard Lord Lumley and Anne Conyers, who were only third cousins.
Again, if he were much younger than the websites' estimate of 1461-
2 , he could have been born after her death. Three solid arguments
against. 1%.

Is it someone else? Possibly but Edward was not as promiscuous as had
been suggested - he did prefer widows. 39%

Personally, I would like to wait to see the Lumley-Conyers
dispensation before committing ourselves but it is logical not to
create extra mistresses to attach his children.