Henry Wiatt

What was Richard III's relation to Henry Wiatt? Were they relatives? Some
sources I have seen on the internet state Henry was the Earl of Norfolk. He
was born in 1460 and died in 1537. So what part did he play in the Struggle
between the House of Lancaster and York. There is a manuscript that said he
was imprisoned and tortured by King Richard III, because of his close
association with the Tudors. What is the truth? My Wiatt ancestor was
probably a Lancastrian. His daughter in law was Joan Beaufort.
Jacob L. Bateman III
Montgomery, Alabama

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> What was Richard III's relation to Henry Wiatt? Were they
relatives? Some
> sources I have seen on the internet state Henry was the Earl of
Norfolk. He
> was born in 1460 and died in 1537. So what part did he play in the
Struggle
> between the House of Lancaster and York. There is a manuscript that
said he
> was imprisoned and tortured by King Richard III, because of his close
> association with the Tudors. What is the truth? My Wiatt ancestor
was
> probably a Lancastrian. His daughter in law was Joan Beaufort.
> Jacob L. Bateman III
> Montgomery, Alabama
>
I shall have a look at my usual sources on that one. The Wyatt family
was quite prominent in the next century as one Thomas Wyatt was both a
poet and a rebel.
There are a lot of good internet sites for history but there are some
very unreliable ones as well. Britain's Education Secretary praised
Wikipedia, for example, last month but many of it's "facts" are in
error or malicious or both, as it's contributor defined nature would
suggest. Just be careful.

I am pretty sure that whatever titles he may have held, the Norfolk
one was not amongst them. The Duchy (not Earldom) of Norfolk in this
era was held originally by the Mowbrays and when their direct line
died out Richard III granted the title to John Howard, who died
fighting for his King at Bosworth. John's descendants who held the
title were regularly in trouble under the Tudors - Catherine Howard
being Henry VIII's fifth wife, and the second to perish under the axe -
but the Howard (now Fitzalan Howard) family managed to survive and
hold the duchy until the present day.

Richard G

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> What was Richard III's relation to Henry Wiatt? Were they
> relatives? Some sources I have seen on the internet state Henry was
> the Earl of Norfolk. He was born in 1460 and died in 1537.

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I am pretty sure that whatever titles he may have held, the Norfolk
> one was not amongst them. The Duchy (not Earldom) of Norfolk in
this
> era was held originally by the Mowbrays and when their direct line
> died out Richard III granted the title to John Howard, who died
> fighting for his King at Bosworth. John's descendants who held the
> title were regularly in trouble under the Tudors - Catherine Howard
> being Henry VIII's fifth wife, and the second to perish under the
axe -
> but the Howard (now Fitzalan Howard) family managed to survive and
> hold the duchy until the present day.
>
> Richard G
>
This is quite right apart from two points:
When the Mowbray Dukes expired, their heiress was married to Richard
of Shrewsbury and he was created Duke of Norfolk until she died and
he was bastardised in June 1483. Sir John Howard was then restored to
his family title.
The 4th Duke was attainted in 1572 and the Duchy not restored at all
until the Restoration although a title was offered to the senior
Howard by Charles I.
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > What was Richard III's relation to Henry Wiatt? Were they
> > relatives? Some sources I have seen on the internet state Henry
was
> > the Earl of Norfolk. He was born in 1460 and died in 1537.
>

I was aware that Ann Mowbray was married to Richard as a means by which
Edward IV could secure the Mowbray lands for his younger son, but not
that the Norfolk Dukedom came with it. Presumably it ranked below the
Dukedom of York and would have been a secondary title for him ?

Richard G

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> This is quite right apart from two points:
> When the Mowbray Dukes expired, their heiress was married to Richard
> of Shrewsbury and he was created Duke of Norfolk until she died and
> he was bastardised in June 1483. Sir John Howard was then restored to
> his family title.

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I was aware that Ann Mowbray was married to Richard as a means by
which
> Edward IV could secure the Mowbray lands for his younger son, but
not
> that the Norfolk Dukedom came with it. Presumably it ranked below
the
> Dukedom of York and would have been a secondary title for him ?
>
> Richard G
>
Yes, I believe this was the case.

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > This is quite right apart from two points:
> > When the Mowbray Dukes expired, their heiress was married to
Richard
> > of Shrewsbury and he was created Duke of Norfolk until she died
and
> > he was bastardised in June 1483. Sir John Howard was then
restored to
> > his family title.
>

Stephen wrote:
> > This is quite right apart from two points:
> > When the Mowbray Dukes expired, their heiress was married to Richard

> > of Shrewsbury and he was created Duke of Norfolk until she died and
> > he was bastardised in June 1483. Sir John Howard was then restored
to
> > his family title.

Ann:
Picky mode on:
Probably more correct to say that Sir John Howard was
either Granted the family title or Created Duke of Norfolk. He had not
previously held the title, so I don't think "restored" is the right word
to use here. I'm sure Sir John applied for the title on the death of
the last Mowbray duke, little Anne's father, but Edward IV had other
plans.
Picky mode off.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~