Find the lady!

In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---

The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...

"Now when we had communed a little concerning
hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
I to Shrewsburie:..."

I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
but I can`t see any other woman who could have
been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".

Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?

Alan

==================

Unless I am mistaken, Our Lady of Worcester was a much venerated statue of the Virgin Mary in Worcester.

LML,
Wayne

alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---

The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...

"Now when we had communed a little concerning
hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
I to Shrewsburie:..."

I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
but I can`t see any other woman who could have
been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".

Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?

Alan

==================

Thanks Wayne. That would explain it. I was actually
toying with the idea of a venerated martyr or saint,
but I couldn`t find any references to any with that
name either.

Alan

===================


--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Unless I am mistaken, Our Lady of Worcester was a much venerated
statue of the Virgin Mary in Worcester.
>
> LML,
> Wayne
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---
>
> The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
> meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
> Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concerning
> hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
> departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
> I to Shrewsburie:..."
>
> I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
> Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
> Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
> married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
> but I can`t see any other woman who could have
> been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".
>
> Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?
>
> Alan
>
> ==================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---
>
> The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
> meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
> Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concerning
> hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
> departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
> I to Shrewsburie:..."
>
> I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
> Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
> Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
> married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
> but I can`t see any other woman who could have
> been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".
>
> Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?
>
> Alan


Could it be a church or abbey where the lady would be staying on her
journey?

Katy

--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Unless I am mistaken, Our Lady of Worcester was a much venerated
statue of the Virgin Mary in Worcester.
>
> LML,
> Wayne
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---
>
> The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
> meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
> Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concerning
> hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
> departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
> I to Shrewsburie:..."
>
> I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
> Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
> Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
> married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
> but I can`t see any other woman who could have
> been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".
>
> Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?
\



Oops...I should read all the posts before speaking up -- Wayne had
already supplied the answer.

This serves as another example of how the use of contemporary
colloquialisms (say that fast three times) can trip us up.

Katy

Katy,
I believe the name of the place is St. Mary's Minster. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13760a.htm):

(11) Worcester -- St. Mary's Minster at Worcester is of ancient date, and pre-eminent amongst its benefactors were Leofric and Godgifu, Earl and Countess of Mercia. The celebrated image of Our Lady and the Holy Child was carved of wood and of large size; it stood over the high altar and could be seen from all parts of the church. The apostate Bishop Latimer, writing to Cromwell, refers to this Statue in coarse terms, and expresses a hope that with its sisters of Walsingham and Ipswich it my be burnt in Smithfield.

LML,
Wayne

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>Could it be a church or abbey where the lady would be staying on her
>journey?

>Katy

Being an ex-Worcestershire man I should have known that. Very remiss
of me. The only excuse I can make is that I`m not an RC. Is Our Lady
of Worcester still in existence, or did Latimer get his wish?

Alan

=============


--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Katy,
> I believe the name of the place is St. Mary's Minster. According
to the Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13760a.htm):
>
> (11) Worcester -- St. Mary's Minster at Worcester is of ancient
date, and pre-eminent amongst its benefactors were Leofric and
Godgifu, Earl and Countess of Mercia. The celebrated image of Our
Lady and the Holy Child was carved of wood and of large size; it
stood over the high altar and could be seen from all parts of the
church. The apostate Bishop Latimer, writing to Cromwell, refers to
this Statue in coarse terms, and expresses a hope that with its
sisters of Walsingham and Ipswich it my be burnt in Smithfield.
>
> LML,
> Wayne
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Could it be a church or abbey where the lady would be staying on
her
> >journey?
>
> >Katy
>
>
>
>

--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Katy,
> I believe the name of the place is St. Mary's Minster. According
to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13760a.htm):
>
> (11) Worcester -- St. Mary's Minster at Worcester is of ancient
date, and pre-eminent amongst its benefactors were Leofric and
Godgifu, Earl and Countess of Mercia. The celebrated image of Our Lady
and the Holy Child was carved of wood and of large size; it stood over
the high altar and could be seen from all parts of the church. The
apostate Bishop Latimer, writing to Cromwell, refers to this Statue in
coarse terms, and expresses a hope that with its sisters of Walsingham
and Ipswich it my be burnt in Smithfield.
>



Could there be still more information to be gleaned from this brief
passage?

Is there any significance in Lady Margaret's intention to proceed on
to, it seems, St Mary's Minster at Worcester? Was it simply a good
safe place for a noble lady to spend the night or a few days, or was
it one of those places where one went to petition Our Lady for something?

The "something" usually seemed to be help with conceiving a child or
with safely navigating the perils of pregnancy and childbirth.

Do either of those female concerns have any relevance to Lady Margaret
at this point in her life?

Katy

It must be remembered that C15th Worcester was
a thriving and important place of commerce, and
particularly for the cloth trade. ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester ---
I reckon the Lady Margaret was probably on a
shopping spree for clothing material or such,
and being a religious lady intended to take the
opportunity to pray to "our ladie of Worcester".
Despite all the political intrigue of the times,
people still led normal lives. She probably
mentioned this during the conversation with
Buckingham, consequently he related to Morton
"shee to our ladie of Worcester, and I to
Shrewsburie". It makes sense to me.

Which brings another question. Why was Buckingham
going to Shrewsbury?

======================

> Could there be still more information to be gleaned from this brief
> passage?
>
> Is there any significance in Lady Margaret's intention to proceed on
> to, it seems, St Mary's Minster at Worcester? Was it simply a good
> safe place for a noble lady to spend the night or a few days, or was
> it one of those places where one went to petition Our Lady for
something?
>
> The "something" usually seemed to be help with conceiving a child or
> with safely navigating the perils of pregnancy and childbirth.
>
> Do either of those female concerns have any relevance to Lady
Margaret
> at this point in her life?
>
> Katy
>

In the invaluable _The Stripping of the Altars_ by Eamon Duffy, I found this
account:

'On the Feast of the Assumption 1537 Thomas Emans, a Worcester serving-man,
entered the despoiled shrine of Our Lady of Worcester, recited a Patenoster
and an Ave, kissed the feet of the image, from which jewels, coat, and shoes
had been taken away, and declared bitterly for all to hear, "Lady, art thou
stripped now? I have seen the day that as clean men hath been stripped at a
pair of gallows as were they that stripped thee." He told the people that,
though her ornaments were gone "the similitude of this is no worse to pray
unto, having recourse to her above, than it was before."

But presumably after this the image itself was taken away and burnt.

I can't lay my hands on the book that would confirm it, but I am pretty sure
that St Mary's Minster Church is what we now know as Worcester Cathedral.
There was a medieval bishop, but there was also a house of monks attached,
that was replaced by a Dean and Chapter.

Brian




On 31/08/2007, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Wayne Ingalls
> <wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
> >
> > Katy,
> > I believe the name of the place is St. Mary's Minster. According
> to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13760a.htm):
> >
> > (11) Worcester -- St. Mary's Minster at Worcester is of ancient
> date, and pre-eminent amongst its benefactors were Leofric and
> Godgifu, Earl and Countess of Mercia. The celebrated image of Our Lady
> and the Holy Child was carved of wood and of large size; it stood over
> the high altar and could be seen from all parts of the church. The
> apostate Bishop Latimer, writing to Cromwell, refers to this Statue in
> coarse terms, and expresses a hope that with its sisters of Walsingham
> and Ipswich it my be burnt in Smithfield.
> >
>
> Could there be still more information to be gleaned from this brief
> passage?
>
> Is there any significance in Lady Margaret's intention to proceed on
> to, it seems, St Mary's Minster at Worcester? Was it simply a good
> safe place for a noble lady to spend the night or a few days, or was
> it one of those places where one went to petition Our Lady for something?
>
> The "something" usually seemed to be help with conceiving a child or
> with safely navigating the perils of pregnancy and childbirth.
>
> Do either of those female concerns have any relevance to Lady Margaret
> at this point in her life?
>
> Katy
>
>
>



--
Brian Wainwright
www.brianwainwright.com

This web site relates to Our Lady of Ipswich
http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/ipsolg.htm and discusses the cult of Mary
in medieval England, which may help us understand what Margaret Beaufort was
about.

It appears that the Ipswich statue may have survived - in Italy.

Brian

Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
1st Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
as the Countess of Worcester.

The problem I have with this, is that at the time
of said quote, John Tiptoft was long dead (executed
1970), and she was married to Sir William Stanley.

I`m not sure of the protocol of keeping titles after
remarriages. I would have thought her title would
have changed to "the Lady Stanley" or some such.
However she was still the mother of the 1st Earl
of Worcester, Edward Tiptoft, so maybe she could
keep her title on those grounds.

Maybe someone with more knowledge than I on the
protocol of peerage may give me the answer.

Another problem is the seat of the Earldom of
Worcester, the title would not necessarily tally
with the location (i.e. the family home may have
been elsewhere in the country). And where was the
family seat of Sir William Stanley? Where exactly
did Elizabeth Hopton live? There is no marriage
date for Edward Tiptoft and he died in 1485 (ten
days before Bosworth) without issue, so I`m
assuming that the last Countess of Worcester was
Elizabeth Hopton, his mother. But as I said above,
was she still referred to as such after her
marriage to Stanley?

Another thing to keep in mind with the Elizabeth
Hopton suggestion is that it was not the Lady
Margaret who made the Holinshed quote "shee to our
ladie of Worcester", but Buckingham to Morton. Would
he have referred to the Countess as "our ladie"? He
was not of the Lady Margaret`s line of Gaunt and not
(as far as I can see) immediate family to either the
Lady Margaret, Stanley or Tiptoft. He would surely
have just said "the ladie of Worcester", "my ladie
of Worcester" (which was I think the normal address),
or the Countess of Worcester.

To me "our ladie" still rings of a religious
connotation. I would welcome comments in an
attempt to solve these problems.

Alan.

===============



--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> This web site relates to Our Lady of Ipswich
> http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/ipsolg.htm and discusses the cult
of Mary
> in medieval England, which may help us understand what Margaret
Beaufort was
> about.
>
> It appears that the Ipswich statue may have survived - in Italy.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>

I`m mixing up my 1sts and my 2nds. John Tiptoft
was the 1st Earl, Edward Tiptoft the 2nd Earl.

================

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> 1st Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> as the Countess of Worcester.
>
> The problem I have with this, is that at the time
> of said quote, John Tiptoft was long dead (executed
> 1970), and she was married to Sir William Stanley.
>
> I`m not sure of the protocol of keeping titles after
> remarriages. I would have thought her title would
> have changed to "the Lady Stanley" or some such.
> However she was still the mother of the 1st Earl
> of Worcester, Edward Tiptoft, so maybe she could
> keep her title on those grounds.
>
> Maybe someone with more knowledge than I on the
> protocol of peerage may give me the answer.
>
> Another problem is the seat of the Earldom of
> Worcester, the title would not necessarily tally
> with the location (i.e. the family home may have
> been elsewhere in the country). And where was the
> family seat of Sir William Stanley? Where exactly
> did Elizabeth Hopton live? There is no marriage
> date for Edward Tiptoft and he died in 1485 (ten
> days before Bosworth) without issue, so I`m
> assuming that the last Countess of Worcester was
> Elizabeth Hopton, his mother. But as I said above,
> was she still referred to as such after her
> marriage to Stanley?
>
> Another thing to keep in mind with the Elizabeth
> Hopton suggestion is that it was not the Lady
> Margaret who made the Holinshed quote "shee to our
> ladie of Worcester", but Buckingham to Morton. Would
> he have referred to the Countess as "our ladie"? He
> was not of the Lady Margaret`s line of Gaunt and not
> (as far as I can see) immediate family to either the
> Lady Margaret, Stanley or Tiptoft. He would surely
> have just said "the ladie of Worcester", "my ladie
> of Worcester" (which was I think the normal address),
> or the Countess of Worcester.
>
> To me "our ladie" still rings of a religious
> connotation. I would welcome comments in an
> attempt to solve these problems.
>
> Alan.
>
> ===============
>
>
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > This web site relates to Our Lady of Ipswich
> > http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/ipsolg.htm and discusses the
cult
> of Mary
> > in medieval England, which may help us understand what Margaret
> Beaufort was
> > about.
> >
> > It appears that the Ipswich statue may have survived - in Italy.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> 2nd Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> as the Countess of Worcester.
>

It was customary for a woman to use her highest title. So she would have
been known as the Countess of Worcester, or Lady Worcester, even after her
marriage to William Stanley. (As an aside, this practice was followed even
when a woman married two men of nominally equal rank, she would use the
title of the more important of the two.)

I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they could be
located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not sure how
he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk (Exchanged with
Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.

Brian

Thanks Brian. I`m trying to figure out if it was
the statue "Our Lady of Worcester", or a real
person, that the Lady Margeret was visiting in
Worcester (if indeed Worcester was her destination).
If the Countess of Worcester didn`t live there,
then the reference would hinge back to the statue.

I can`t get it out of my head that "our ladie"
has the religious connotation, and therefore
the statue. But she could also have been
visiting the Bishop of Worcester at the same
time. If the latter, then for what?

Alan

=============

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> >
> > Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> > Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> > had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> > could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> > 2nd Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> > as the Countess of Worcester.
> >
>
> It was customary for a woman to use her highest title. So she would
have
> been known as the Countess of Worcester, or Lady Worcester, even
after her
> marriage to William Stanley. (As an aside, this practice was
followed even
> when a woman married two men of nominally equal rank, she would use
the
> title of the more important of the two.)
>
> I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they could
be
> located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not
sure how
> he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
(Exchanged with
> Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>

Hi Alan

I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine than the
Countess, but that's just my opinion.

I'm trying to think who was Bishop of Worcester. Was it the man who was
tutor to Edward V? Alcock? I'm working off memory here, but if I'm right,
that could indeed be significant. (Though of course one cannot necessarily
count on a medieval bishop being sat on his diocese rather than at court.)

Brian W.


On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian. I`m trying to figure out if it was
> the statue "Our Lady of Worcester", or a real
> person, that the Lady Margeret was visiting in
> Worcester (if indeed Worcester was her destination).
> If the Countess of Worcester didn`t live there,
> then the reference would hinge back to the statue.
>
> I can`t get it out of my head that "our ladie"
> has the religious connotation, and therefore
> the statue. But she could also have been
> visiting the Bishop of Worcester at the same
> time. If the latter, then for what?
>
> Alan
>
> =============
>
> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> > > Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> > > had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> > > could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> > > 2nd Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> > > as the Countess of Worcester.
> > >
> >
> > It was customary for a woman to use her highest title. So she would
> have
> > been known as the Countess of Worcester, or Lady Worcester, even
> after her
> > marriage to William Stanley. (As an aside, this practice was
> followed even
> > when a woman married two men of nominally equal rank, she would use
> the
> > title of the more important of the two.)
> >
> > I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they could
> be
> > located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not
> sure how
> > he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
> (Exchanged with
> > Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Brian Wainwright
www.brianwainwright.com

Hi Brian,

The Bishop of Worcester at the time was indeed John Alcock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alcock_%28bishop%29

Alan.

=================

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alan
>
> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine
than the
> Countess, but that's just my opinion.
>
> I'm trying to think who was Bishop of Worcester. Was it the man who
was
> tutor to Edward V? Alcock? I'm working off memory here, but if I'm
right,
> that could indeed be significant. (Though of course one cannot
necessarily
> count on a medieval bishop being sat on his diocese rather than at
court.)
>
> Brian W.
>
>
> On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Brian. I`m trying to figure out if it was
> > the statue "Our Lady of Worcester", or a real
> > person, that the Lady Margeret was visiting in
> > Worcester (if indeed Worcester was her destination).
> > If the Countess of Worcester didn`t live there,
> > then the reference would hinge back to the statue.
> >
> > I can`t get it out of my head that "our ladie"
> > has the religious connotation, and therefore
> > the statue. But she could also have been
> > visiting the Bishop of Worcester at the same
> > time. If the latter, then for what?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > =============
> >
> > --- In
<%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Brian Wainwright"
> > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> > > > Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> > > > had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> > > > could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> > > > 2nd Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> > > > as the Countess of Worcester.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was customary for a woman to use her highest title. So she
would
> > have
> > > been known as the Countess of Worcester, or Lady Worcester, even
> > after her
> > > marriage to William Stanley. (As an aside, this practice was
> > followed even
> > > when a woman married two men of nominally equal rank, she would
use
> > the
> > > title of the more important of the two.)
> > >
> > > I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they
could
> > be
> > > located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt
(not
> > sure how
> > > he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
> > (Exchanged with
> > > Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Wainwright
> www.brianwainwright.com
>
>
>
>

I sent an Email to Worcester Cathedral re the statue.

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

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I`m doing research on 15th century England. I came
across references to "Our Lady of Worcester" which
was housed in St. Mary's Minster. I wonder if you
could answer a couple of questions. I`d be most
grateful if you could.

1. Was Worcester Cathedral once known as St. Mary's
Minster?
2. Is the statue "Our Lady of Worcester" still in
existence, and if not, when and how was it destroyed?"

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

I`ve just received an answer fro the Cathedral
librarian as follows...

"Thank you for your enquiry. Neither Worcester
Cathedral Priory nor Worcester Cathedral were
usually called Minster in the middle ages although
both the Cathedral was dedicated to Mary.

The Statue was destroyed during the reformation.
I believe that it was taken off to be burnt
(presumably at London) on the orders of Thomas
Cromwell in September 1538."

Librarian. Worcester Cathedral.

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

Alan

============================

--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Katy,
> I believe the name of the place is St. Mary's Minster. According
to the Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13760a.htm):
>
> (11) Worcester -- St. Mary's Minster at Worcester is of ancient
date, and pre-eminent amongst its benefactors were Leofric and
Godgifu, Earl and Countess of Mercia. The celebrated image of Our
Lady and the Holy Child was carved of wood and of large size; it
stood over the high altar and could be seen from all parts of the
church. The apostate Bishop Latimer, writing to Cromwell, refers to
this Statue in coarse terms, and expresses a hope that with its
sisters of Walsingham and Ipswich it my be burnt in Smithfield.
>
> LML,
> Wayne
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Could it be a church or abbey where the lady would be staying on
her
> >journey?
>
> >Katy
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

>
> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine than the
> Countess, but that's just my opinion.


I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was going to
theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever -- that
"the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.

Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for. Did
women go there to ask her help with something such as infertility or
difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with female
concerns, for obvious reasons.

Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of Lady
Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She wasn't
barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.

Katy

Good point Katy.

I got to wondering recently re the birth of Henry Tudor when Margaret
was only 13 years of age, if there were complications with it, which
could have left the Lady Margeret barren. Such conditions can leave
women very angry, vindictive and jealous. There was no issue from the
Stafford marriage, and she took a vow of perpetual chastity before
the Stanley marriage. Why? She had only one child to Tudor, but had
she longed for another child, but came to realise she couldn`t
conceive. She became close to Margaret Woodville and the princes, but
was this "friendship" all a sham to hide and/or further her real
intentions? Was the Lady Margaret jealous of Margaret Woodville for
more than one reason? Given that her own son Henry had only a slender
claim on the throne, and the princes were a bar to that claim, did
envy also play a part in their ultimate fate?

Alan

===========

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine
than the
> > Countess, but that's just my opinion.
>
>
> I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was going
to
> theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
> house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever --
that
> "the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.
>
> Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
> particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for. Did
> women go there to ask her help with something such as infertility or
> difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with female
> concerns, for obvious reasons.
>
> Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of Lady
> Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She wasn't
> barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.
>
> Katy
>

lady worcester was elizabeth hopton, widow of john tiptoft. he acquired the earl of worcestor title via his wife, cecily neville..sister of the kingmaker.

their aunt was another cecily neville..she is the mother of r3.

anyhow back to tiptoft's widow cecily. she had been married to henry beauchamp, brother to anne beauchamp the kingmaker's wife. when henry died, anne beauchamp inherited most of his titles etc. tiptoft got h6 to make him earl of worcester in 1449. so essentially tiptoft stole the earl of worcester title from anne beauchamp. the title should have gone to one of her daughters. isabel m. d of clarence. anne m. r3.

finding that lady worcester, widow of tiptoft was married to wm stanley brother of thomas m. margaret beaufort was to say the least surprising. it is possible margaret was going to see lady worcester vs a religious pilgramage. why?

because beaufort was rallying alliances. a whisper that r3 via his wife anne could be after the worcester title could be enough to cause a waver in support for the new king...r3 would have had the power and the right to reclaim that title.

i do find it interesting that alcock, is the bishop of worcester, and that "our lady of worcester" was a shrine for mother's to pray to.

perhaps maggie was doing triple duty..a little visit with the bishop, a little prayer for her son's success in becoming king..and a little gossip and fear mongering to manipulate her inlaws, elizabeth and william stanley. btw, william lost his head in his support for perkin warbeck.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

>
> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine than the
> Countess, but that's just my opinion.

I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was going to
theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever -- that
"the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.

Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for. Did
women go there to ask her help with something such as infertility or
difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with female
concerns, for obvious reasons.

Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of Lady
Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She wasn't
barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.

Katy

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Good point Katy.
>
> I got to wondering recently re the birth of Henry Tudor when Margaret
> was only 13 years of age, if there were complications with it, which
> could have left the Lady Margeret barren. Such conditions can leave
> women very angry, vindictive and jealous. There was no issue from the
> Stafford marriage, and she took a vow of perpetual chastity before
> the Stanley marriage. Why? She had only one child to Tudor, but had
> she longed for another child, but came to realise she couldn`t
> conceive. She became close to Margaret Woodville and the princes, but
> was this "friendship" all a sham to hide and/or further her real
> intentions? Was the Lady Margaret jealous of Margaret Woodville for
> more than one reason? Given that her own son Henry had only a slender
> claim on the throne, and the princes were a bar to that claim, did
> envy also play a part in their ultimate fate?
>
> Alan


I had lost track of the fact that the Lady Margaret whom Buckingham
was chatting up was Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor.

Considering that she became pregnant when she was only 14, and that we
know she was a very petite woman, and she had no more children despite
two more marriages, and that she took a vow of chastity despite being
married (or married despite having taken a vow of chastity...whichever
order those events came in) I would not be surprised if she had some
sort of "female problems" for which she may have been visiting the
Virgin of Worcester.

She is said to have been very fond of children, yet she had only the
one. That and all the above factors suggests to me that she suffered
permanent damage from pregnancy and childbirth when she was very young.

If she was married at the same time that she had taken a vow of
chastity, doesn't that suggest that she had had medical grounds,
acceptable to the Church, for abstaining from marital relations with
her husband?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > Good point Katy.
> >
> > I got to wondering recently re the birth of Henry Tudor when Margaret
> > was only 13 years of age, if there were complications with it, which
> > could have left the Lady Margeret barren. Such conditions can leave
> > women very angry, vindictive and jealous. There was no issue from the
> > Stafford marriage, and she took a vow of perpetual chastity before
> > the Stanley marriage. Why? She had only one child to Tudor, but had
> > she longed for another child, but came to realise she couldn`t
> > conceive. She became close to Margaret Woodville and the princes, but
> > was this "friendship" all a sham to hide and/or further her real
> > intentions? Was the Lady Margaret jealous of Margaret Woodville for
> > more than one reason? Given that her own son Henry had only a slender
> > claim on the throne, and the princes were a bar to that claim, did
> > envy also play a part in their ultimate fate?
> >
> > Alan
>
>
> I had lost track of the fact that the Lady Margaret whom Buckingham
> was chatting up was Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor.
>
> Considering that she became pregnant when she was only 14,

Oops..make that 13. She was born in May 1443 so she was 14 when Henry
was born in January 1457.

Katy
>

addendum
kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via the right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was passing the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the title in the family.

kingmaker was incredibly rich and could afford to let his sister have something from her marriage to his deceased brother in law, henry beauchamp.

it was 1449 when tiptoft married cecily and claimed the worchester title. kingmaker didn't know cecily would die a year later with no issue.

tiptoft, the butcher of england, didn't remarry until 1467 and by then kingmaker was on the the edge of rebellion against e4. kingmaker and e4 had been on the outs since 1464 when he married woodville...so, it was highly unlikely kingmaker would have/could have made a squawk about the loss of the worcester title...who knows maybe he had. could this have been one more straw on the camel's back that led to kingmaker's rebellion in 1468.

was the worcester title a little dangle to margaret of anjou to agree to kingmaker's daughter anne's marriage to anjou and h6's son edward?

it leaves one wondering..exactly what lands/income the worcester title held. more research for another day.

roslyn

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
lady worcester was elizabeth hopton, widow of john tiptoft. he acquired the earl of worcestor title via his wife, cecily neville..sister of the kingmaker.

their aunt was another cecily neville..she is the mother of r3.

anyhow back to tiptoft's widow cecily. she had been married to henry beauchamp, brother to anne beauchamp the kingmaker's wife. when henry died, anne beauchamp inherited most of his titles etc. tiptoft got h6 to make him earl of worcester in 1449. so essentially tiptoft stole the earl of worcester title from anne beauchamp. the title should have gone to one of her daughters. isabel m. d of clarence. anne m. r3.

finding that lady worcester, widow of tiptoft was married to wm stanley brother of thomas m. margaret beaufort was to say the least surprising. it is possible margaret was going to see lady worcester vs a religious pilgramage. why?

because beaufort was rallying alliances. a whisper that r3 via his wife anne could be after the worcester title could be enough to cause a waver in support for the new king...r3 would have had the power and the right to reclaim that title.

i do find it interesting that alcock, is the bishop of worcester, and that "our lady of worcester" was a shrine for mother's to pray to.

perhaps maggie was doing triple duty..a little visit with the bishop, a little prayer for her son's success in becoming king..and a little gossip and fear mongering to manipulate her inlaws, elizabeth and william stanley. btw, william lost his head in his support for perkin warbeck.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

>
> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine than the
> Countess, but that's just my opinion.

I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was going to
theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever -- that
"the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.

Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for. Did
women go there to ask her help with something such as infertility or
difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with female
concerns, for obvious reasons.

Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of Lady
Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She wasn't
barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> addendum
> kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via the
right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was passing
the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
title in the family.

The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard Beauchamp
the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard was son
of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna Fitzalan.
Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle Despenser,
Warwick being her second husband.

Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit or
transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created with
a limitation of descent in tail male.

I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was first
earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
choose my words carefully as they descended from different husbands
of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her great-
grandson.)

Brian W

I think you mean Elizabeth Woodville Alan, and yes, absolutely was
Margaret full of envy, and single minded in her ambition. If only
Richard had had the good sense to execute her and Stanley at the same
time as Hastings.
Not forgetting that bloody churchman either! I would have.
That he didn't gives the lie to all those ruthless man accusations
doesn't it?
Paul

On 3 Sep 2007, at 18:27, alanth252 wrote:

> Good point Katy.
>
> I got to wondering recently re the birth of Henry Tudor when Margaret
> was only 13 years of age, if there were complications with it, which
> could have left the Lady Margeret barren. Such conditions can leave
> women very angry, vindictive and jealous. There was no issue from the
> Stafford marriage, and she took a vow of perpetual chastity before
> the Stanley marriage. Why? She had only one child to Tudor, but had
> she longed for another child, but came to realise she couldn`t
> conceive. She became close to Margaret Woodville and the princes, but
> was this "friendship" all a sham to hide and/or further her real
> intentions? Was the Lady Margaret jealous of Margaret Woodville for
> more than one reason? Given that her own son Henry had only a slender
> claim on the throne, and the princes were a bar to that claim, did
> envy also play a part in their ultimate fate?
>
> Alan
>
> ===========
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
>> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine
> than the
>>> Countess, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>>
>> I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was going
> to
>> theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
>> house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever --
> that
>> "the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.
>>
>> Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
>> particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for. Did
>> women go there to ask her help with something such as infertility or
>> difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with female
>> concerns, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of Lady
>> Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She wasn't
>> barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son henry.

isabel's daughter elizabeth, by her first husband m. edward neville brother of cecily, mother of r3. i don't know why the title didn't pass to elizabeth beauchamp's issue. perhaps it was because she was a woman..and her issue were nevilles..so again the title "remained" in the family.

richard neville father of cecily m. richard, duke of york was the elder brother of edward m. elizabeth beauchamp.

when isabel d. in 1439, richard neville was already m. to anne beauchamp. and henry beauchamp was also m. to cecily the younger neville.

a junior branch of the neville family (edward) may not have wanted to take on higher nobility (richard), especially one that had married a daughter into the possible succession to the throne..ie cecily m. richard d. of york.

elizabeth beauchamp died in 1448. henry her younger half brother in 1445. tiptoft didn't get the legal use of the title until 1449. elizabeth's descent line got the Bergavenny title.

one note on the worcester title said it reverted to the crown when the first husband richard beauchamp died...

isabel may have petitioned for it's return..or perhaps her second husband did.

she was the granddau of edmund of langley. perhaps her first husband was created worcester because of her royal connection. langley was on good terms with H4. the richard beauchamps were on good terms with h5. isabel's second richard was a higher rank, more senior member of the beauchamp family..

this could be the reason was lady worcester to both beauchamp husband/cousins..and why the title jumped over her first born daughter to her only son.

lady worcester, isabel de la spencer was an interesting person. in my quest to find "lady worcester", i turned up this nugget of info written by horace wapole.
watch the line wrap. ends..ppa40,m1

http://books.google.com/books?id=11EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22our+lady+of+worcester%22&source=web&ots=dH5cQyFpb8&sig=Uo5VCwS3Wd_-SK0nQSAijMdaTaE#PPA40,M1



Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> addendum
> kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via the
right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was passing
the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
title in the family.

The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard Beauchamp
the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard was son
of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna Fitzalan.
Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle Despenser,
Warwick being her second husband.

Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit or
transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created with
a limitation of descent in tail male.

I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was first
earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
choose my words carefully as they descended from different husbands
of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her great-
grandson.)

Brian W

An aristocratic lady might, during the Middle Ages, find overnight
accommodation in a convenient nunnery, which would be full of other
aristocratic ladies such as herself (ie the nuns). Worcester was the
site of such a nunnery, but I cannot find its dedication -
possible "Our Lady" (?)

(lol)You`re right Paul, that`s twice I`ve been pulled
up on that. Mistake in my notes. I`ll rectify it right
now. Thanks.

Alan

===================


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> I think you mean Elizabeth Woodville Alan, and yes, absolutely was
> Margaret full of envy, and single minded in her ambition. If only
> Richard had had the good sense to execute her and Stanley at the
same
> time as Hastings.
> Not forgetting that bloody churchman either! I would have.
> That he didn't gives the lie to all those ruthless man accusations
> doesn't it?
> Paul
>
> On 3 Sep 2007, at 18:27, alanth252 wrote:
>
> > Good point Katy.
> >
> > I got to wondering recently re the birth of Henry Tudor when
Margaret
> > was only 13 years of age, if there were complications with it,
which
> > could have left the Lady Margeret barren. Such conditions can
leave
> > women very angry, vindictive and jealous. There was no issue from
the
> > Stafford marriage, and she took a vow of perpetual chastity before
> > the Stanley marriage. Why? She had only one child to Tudor, but
had
> > she longed for another child, but came to realise she couldn`t
> > conceive. She became close to Margaret Woodville and the princes,
but
> > was this "friendship" all a sham to hide and/or further her real
> > intentions? Was the Lady Margaret jealous of Margaret Woodville
for
> > more than one reason? Given that her own son Henry had only a
slender
> > claim on the throne, and the princes were a bar to that claim, did
> > envy also play a part in their ultimate fate?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> >> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine
> > than the
> >>> Countess, but that's just my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think so, too. And it sounds to me like Lady Margaret was
going
> > to
> >> theshrine, specifically, rather than to simply lodge at the guest
> >> house for a few days while shopping in Worcester, or whatever --
> > that
> >> "the ladie" was her reason for goingto Worcester.
> >>
> >> Which brings me back to the question of what, if anything, in
> >> particular the shrine of the Virgin at At Mary's was known for.
Did
> >> women go there to ask her help with something such as
infertility or
> >> difficult childbearing? The Virgin is usually connected with
female
> >> concerns, for obvious reasons.
> >>
> >> Can we make something of this visit to "our ladie" in terms of
Lady
> >> Margaret's own life and her circumstances at the time? She
wasn't
> >> barren, since Buckingham mentions their chatting about her son.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

Whistones Priory, a Cistercian house, was situated just outside
Worcester. It was dedicated to St Mary Magdalene, which probably
explains the reference to Out Lady of Worcester.

This complex inheritance issue is explained in Storey - End of the
House of Lancaster.
The key is the law of "the exclusion of the half blood", by which
the last Beauchamp male (Duke Henry) was succeeded by his younger
(but full) sister (who married the Kingmaker) to the exclusion of
his three elder half-sisters. Seems rather unfair on the elder
girls, but that was the law. It didn't stop them (and their
husbands) fighting for a share of he Beauchamp estates, however.
Edward Neville, Lord Bergavenney, ws legally entitled to a half
share of the Despencer lands, but never seems to have obtained them.
Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was appointed guardian of
Bergavenny and this is the origin of the Somerset-Warwick feud.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named
richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her
second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son
henry.
>
> isabel's daughter elizabeth, by her first husband m. edward
neville brother of cecily, mother of r3. i don't know why the title
didn't pass to elizabeth beauchamp's issue. perhaps it was because
she was a woman..and her issue were nevilles..so again the
title "remained" in the family.
>
> richard neville father of cecily m. richard, duke of york was
the elder brother of edward m. elizabeth beauchamp.
>
> when isabel d. in 1439, richard neville was already m. to anne
beauchamp. and henry beauchamp was also m. to cecily the younger
neville.
>
> a junior branch of the neville family (edward) may not have
wanted to take on higher nobility (richard), especially one that had
married a daughter into the possible succession to the throne..ie
cecily m. richard d. of york.
>
> elizabeth beauchamp died in 1448. henry her younger half brother
in 1445. tiptoft didn't get the legal use of the title until 1449.
elizabeth's descent line got the Bergavenny title.
>
> one note on the worcester title said it reverted to the crown
when the first husband richard beauchamp died...
>
> isabel may have petitioned for it's return..or perhaps her
second husband did.
>
> she was the granddau of edmund of langley. perhaps her first
husband was created worcester because of her royal connection.
langley was on good terms with H4. the richard beauchamps were on
good terms with h5. isabel's second richard was a higher rank, more
senior member of the beauchamp family..
>
> this could be the reason was lady worcester to both beauchamp
husband/cousins..and why the title jumped over her first born
daughter to her only son.
>
> lady worcester, isabel de la spencer was an interesting person.
in my quest to find "lady worcester", i turned up this nugget of
info written by horace wapole.
> watch the line wrap. ends..ppa40,m1
>
> http://books.google.com/books?
id=11EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22our+lady+of+worcester%
22&source=web&ots=dH5cQyFpb8&sig=Uo5VCwS3Wd_-SK0nQSAijMdaTaE#PPA40,M1
>
>
>
> Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
> --- In , fayre
rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > addendum
> > kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via the
> right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was
passing
> the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
> title in the family.
>
> The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard
Beauchamp
> the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard was
son
> of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna
Fitzalan.
> Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle Despenser,
> Warwick being her second husband.
>
> Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
> Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit or
> transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created
with
> a limitation of descent in tail male.
>
> I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
> Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was
first
> earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
> cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
> choose my words carefully as they descended from different
husbands
> of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her
great-
> grandson.)
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester (1343 – July 23, 1403)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester

He was created Earl of Worcester in 1397 by Richard II. The title was
extinct in 1403.

It was recreated by Henry VI for John Tiptoft (the son of John
Tiptoft, 1st Baron Tiptoft and Joyce Cherleton) on 16 July 1449, on
his marriage with Cecily Neville, (daughter of Richard Neville, 5th
Earl of Salisbury, in 1449), by whom he had no issue. After the death
of John`s son Edward, the 2nd Earl of Worcester (by John`s marriage
to Elizabeth Hopton), the title became extinct again.

Alan

===================

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > addendum
> > kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via
the
> right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was
passing
> the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
> title in the family.
>
> The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard Beauchamp
> the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard was
son
> of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna Fitzalan.
> Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle Despenser,
> Warwick being her second husband.
>
> Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
> Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit or
> transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created
with
> a limitation of descent in tail male.
>
> I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
> Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was
first
> earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
> cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
> choose my words carefully as they descended from different husbands
> of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her
great-
> grandson.)
>
> Brian W
>

More details on the Warwick inheritance:

http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm

(Sorry if this link has already been posted)


--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester (1343 – July 23, 1403)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester
>
> He was created Earl of Worcester in 1397 by Richard II. The title
was
> extinct in 1403.
>
> It was recreated by Henry VI for John Tiptoft (the son of John
> Tiptoft, 1st Baron Tiptoft and Joyce Cherleton) on 16 July 1449,
on
> his marriage with Cecily Neville, (daughter of Richard Neville,
5th
> Earl of Salisbury, in 1449), by whom he had no issue. After the
death
> of John`s son Edward, the 2nd Earl of Worcester (by John`s
marriage
> to Elizabeth Hopton), the title became extinct again.
>
> Alan
>
> ===================
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > addendum
> > > kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via
> the
> > right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was
> passing
> > the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
> > title in the family.
> >
> > The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard
Beauchamp
> > the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard
was
> son
> > of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna
Fitzalan.
> > Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle
Despenser,
> > Warwick being her second husband.
> >
> > Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
> > Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit
or
> > transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created
> with
> > a limitation of descent in tail male.
> >
> > I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
> > Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was
> first
> > earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
> > cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
> > choose my words carefully as they descended from different
husbands
> > of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her
> great-
> > grandson.)
> >
> > Brian W
> >
>

(I`ll try again with the links)

There seems to be a lot of jiggerpokery going on
with this title of Worcester around the turn of
the 14/15th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beauchamp%2C_1st_Baron_Bergavenny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beauchamp%
2C_1st_Earl_of_Worcester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester

Alan

=============
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > More details on the Warwick inheritance:
> >
> > http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
> >
> > (Sorry if this link has already been posted)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester (1343 – July 23, 1403)
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester
> > >
> > > He was created Earl of Worcester in 1397 by Richard II. The
title
> > was
> > > extinct in 1403.
> > >
> > > It was recreated by Henry VI for John Tiptoft (the son of John
> > > Tiptoft, 1st Baron Tiptoft and Joyce Cherleton) on 16 July
1449,
> > on
> > > his marriage with Cecily Neville, (daughter of Richard Neville,
> > 5th
> > > Earl of Salisbury, in 1449), by whom he had no issue. After the
> > death
> > > of John`s son Edward, the 2nd Earl of Worcester (by John`s
> > marriage
> > > to Elizabeth Hopton), the title became extinct again.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > ===================
> > >
> > > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> > > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > addendum
> > > > > kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title
> via
> > > the
> > > > right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was
> > > passing
> > > > the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping
> the
> > > > title in the family.
> > > >
> > > > The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard
> > Beauchamp
> > > > the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard
> > was
> > > son
> > > > of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna
> > Fitzalan.
> > > > Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle
> > Despenser,
> > > > Warwick being her second husband.
> > > >
> > > > Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
> > > > Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not
inherit
> > or
> > > > transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably
created
> > > with
> > > > a limitation of descent in tail male.
> > > >
> > > > I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person -
that
> > > > Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he
was
> > > first
> > > > earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
> > > > cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March.
(I
> > > > choose my words carefully as they descended from different
> > husbands
> > > > of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward
her
> > > great-
> > > > grandson.)
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

yes, i forgot about second husband richard's first marriage to elizabeth berkeley, mother of margaret and eleanor beauchamp.

margaret m. john talbot father of eleanor talbot boteler and eleanor m.edmund beaufort brother to john father of tudor's mommie dearest.

eleanor and edmund beaufort's dau margaret was the mother of good ole buckingham.

gosh these half sibs from second, third marriages. sure create some great knots of alliegence to unsnarl. but, even with that would it not be more of isabel's children who had a claim to the worcester title, especially if isabel brought the title as a widow into the second marriage.

i can easily see the claim of her first child and elizabeth's descent line having a superiour claim over the children from the second marriage. but her step daughters claim was weak, if not negligible.

i was not aware that there was a somerset/warwick dispute.
thanks for sharing
roslyn

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
This complex inheritance issue is explained in Storey - End of the
House of Lancaster.
The key is the law of "the exclusion of the half blood", by which
the last Beauchamp male (Duke Henry) was succeeded by his younger
(but full) sister (who married the Kingmaker) to the exclusion of
his three elder half-sisters. Seems rather unfair on the elder
girls, but that was the law. It didn't stop them (and their
husbands) fighting for a share of he Beauchamp estates, however.
Edward Neville, Lord Bergavenney, ws legally entitled to a half
share of the Despencer lands, but never seems to have obtained them.
Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was appointed guardian of
Bergavenny and this is the origin of the Somerset-Warwick feud.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named
richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her
second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son
henry.
>
> isabel's daughter elizabeth, by her first husband m. edward
neville brother of cecily, mother of r3. i don't know why the title
didn't pass to elizabeth beauchamp's issue. perhaps it was because
she was a woman..and her issue were nevilles..so again the
title "remained" in the family.
>
> richard neville father of cecily m. richard, duke of york was
the elder brother of edward m. elizabeth beauchamp.
>
> when isabel d. in 1439, richard neville was already m. to anne
beauchamp. and henry beauchamp was also m. to cecily the younger
neville.
>
> a junior branch of the neville family (edward) may not have
wanted to take on higher nobility (richard), especially one that had
married a daughter into the possible succession to the throne..ie
cecily m. richard d. of york.
>
> elizabeth beauchamp died in 1448. henry her younger half brother
in 1445. tiptoft didn't get the legal use of the title until 1449.
elizabeth's descent line got the Bergavenny title.
>
> one note on the worcester title said it reverted to the crown
when the first husband richard beauchamp died...
>
> isabel may have petitioned for it's return..or perhaps her
second husband did.
>
> she was the granddau of edmund of langley. perhaps her first
husband was created worcester because of her royal connection.
langley was on good terms with H4. the richard beauchamps were on
good terms with h5. isabel's second richard was a higher rank, more
senior member of the beauchamp family..
>
> this could be the reason was lady worcester to both beauchamp
husband/cousins..and why the title jumped over her first born
daughter to her only son.
>
> lady worcester, isabel de la spencer was an interesting person.
in my quest to find "lady worcester", i turned up this nugget of
info written by horace wapole.
> watch the line wrap. ends..ppa40,m1
>
> http://books.google.com/books?
id=11EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22our+lady+of+worcester%
22&source=web&ots=dH5cQyFpb8&sig=Uo5VCwS3Wd_-SK0nQSAijMdaTaE#PPA40,M1
>
>
>
> Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
> --- In , fayre
rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > addendum
> > kingmaker could have claimed the earl of worcester title via the
> right of his wife anne, however, as it was his sister who was
passing
> the title to tiptoft..it would be simply a matter of keeping the
> title in the family.
>
> The Worcester earldom was created around 1420 for Richard
Beauchamp
> the cousin of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick. This Richard was
son
> of William Beauchamp, Lord Bergavenny and his wife Joanna
Fitzalan.
> Confusingly both Richards successively married Isabelle Despenser,
> Warwick being her second husband.
>
> Now, the 'original' Worcester and Isabelle had one daughter,
> Elizabeth, who by definition, being a woman, could not inherit or
> transmit an earldom, which, by this era were invariably created
with
> a limitation of descent in tail male.
>
> I think - I haven't got Complete Peerage about my person - that
> Tiptoft's earldom was created for him by Henry VI, and he was
first
> earl of the new creation. He, Tiptoft, and Edward IV were in
> cousinage, being descended from Alianore, Countess of March. (I
> choose my words carefully as they descended from different
husbands
> of the said Countess, Tiptoft being her grandson and Edward her
great-
> grandson.)
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named
richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her
second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son henry.

With all respect Roslyn, I don't follow your logic here. A woman does
not inherit her husband's peerage. Isabelle was undoubtedly (to use
modern terms) Dowager Countess of Worcester or Isabelle, Lady
Worcester, but these are courtesy titles not peerages, and the only
person she could have transmitted the (entailed) peerage to was a son
by her first husband. Since such a son was never born the peerage
became extinct on the first Beauchamp's death, it ceased to be, it was
no more...

As has been mentioned Warwick illegally helped himself to much of
Elizabeth Beauchamp's inheritance; he had no right but brute force to
do this, but even if he had had every right in law, he would still not
have had any valid claim on the earldom of Worcester, direct or
indirect, because he was not a Beauchamp. He might at best (in those
circumstances) have hoped to have it revived for him as a new creation,
but this would have been a privilege, not a right. This is what
happened in the case of his Warwick title, which was a new creation for
him.

Brian W

Further on John Alcock.

From Holinshed (RIII version Pg 412) ....

"Sith you will begin that waie (said the bishop) I haue an old freend
with the countesse, a man sober, secret, and well witted, called
Reginald Braie : whose prudent policie I haue knowne to haue
compassed things of great importance, for whome I shall secretlie
send, if it be your pleasure; and I doubt not but he will gladlie
come and that with a good will. So with a little diligence the bishop
wrote a letter to Reginald Braie, requiring him to come to Brecknocke
with speed, for great and vrgent causes touching his mistresse : and
no other thing was declared in the letter."

Presumably the "countesse" is the Lady Margaret.

Here`s an interesting titbit from wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Bray

Sir Reginald was born in Worcester in around 1440, the second son of
Sir Richard Bray...He also took a major role in the construction of
Jesus College in Cambridge and was friends with its founder, John
Alcock.

Alan

=================


--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> The Bishop of Worcester at the time was indeed John Alcock.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alcock_%28bishop%29
>
> Alan.
>
> =================
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alan
> >
> > I think 'Our Lady of Worcester' is more likely to be the shrine
> than the
> > Countess, but that's just my opinion.
> >
> > I'm trying to think who was Bishop of Worcester. Was it the man
who
> was
> > tutor to Edward V? Alcock? I'm working off memory here, but if
I'm
> right,
> > that could indeed be significant. (Though of course one cannot
> necessarily
> > count on a medieval bishop being sat on his diocese rather than
at
> court.)
> >
> > Brian W.
> >
> >
> > On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Brian. I`m trying to figure out if it was
> > > the statue "Our Lady of Worcester", or a real
> > > person, that the Lady Margeret was visiting in
> > > Worcester (if indeed Worcester was her destination).
> > > If the Countess of Worcester didn`t live there,
> > > then the reference would hinge back to the statue.
> > >
> > > I can`t get it out of my head that "our ladie"
> > > has the religious connotation, and therefore
> > > the statue. But she could also have been
> > > visiting the Bishop of Worcester at the same
> > > time. If the latter, then for what?
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > =============
> > >
> > > --- In
> <%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Brian Wainwright"
> > > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 03/09/07, alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Further to the question of Buckingham`s quote in
> > > > > Holinshed "shee to our ladie of Worcester", I`ve
> > > > > had another suggestion put to me, that "our ladie"
> > > > > could have been Elizabeth Hopton, the wife of the
> > > > > 2nd Earl of Worcester, John Tiptoft. She was known
> > > > > as the Countess of Worcester.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was customary for a woman to use her highest title. So she
> would
> > > have
> > > > been known as the Countess of Worcester, or Lady Worcester,
even
> > > after her
> > > > marriage to William Stanley. (As an aside, this practice was
> > > followed even
> > > > when a woman married two men of nominally equal rank, she
would
> use
> > > the
> > > > title of the more important of the two.)
> > > >
> > > > I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they
> could
> > > be
> > > > located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt
> (not
> > > sure how
> > > > he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
> > > (Exchanged with
> > > > Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brian Wainwright
> > www.brianwainwright.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

brian, by far and away i am NOT an expert on medieval inheritance law. however, on several occassions i have noticed a surviving spouse "carrying" forward titles born by the deceased spouse.

one of the more interesting of these is the d'lisle title. this title passed into the talbot line via margaret beauchamp.

her son john talbot passed the title on to his daughter elizabeth. she passed it to her son john. he to his daughter elizabeth, betrothed to charles brandon. brandon was also granted her wardship. brandon took the d'lisle title and revenues. elizabeth refuted her betrothal to brandon and then married henry courtney, son of katherine plantagenet, dau of e4.

elizabeth died circa 1519. brandon still held the d'lisle title. circa 1522, elizabeth's aunt, sister of john had the d'lisle title returned to her and her second husband, arthur waite plantagenet. the 6th baroness lisle died. her husband arthur, then married honour grenville. they were both known as lord and lady lisle.

when arthur died, the title was revised and renamed and passed on to elizabeth, the 6th baronesses' descent line.

we also have cecily, the younger neville known as the lady worcester via her marriage to henry beauchamp. cecily m. john tiptoft. tiptoft then has the title bestowed upon himself..by the right of cecily..she legally was known as lady worcester.

just to be clear..i am not saying there was a "legal" inheritance of title..but definitely a "claimed" entitlement. tiptoft ensured his right by having the king grant him the title of lord worcester.

it would appear that while an individual may not have had a true and clear entitlement to the title..they did pass it on via surviving spouses..with or without issue.

following the letter of the law was not imperitive if one had the monarchy behind them..the lisle title is more than clear proof of that. i have to wonder if the 6th baroness lisle would have had the title returned if she had married some one other than the king's uncle..after all the king's best friend and brother in law had legally "stolen" the title from a little girl, her niece.

and..i'm away for the next couple of days.
roslyn

Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named
richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her
second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son henry.

With all respect Roslyn, I don't follow your logic here. A woman does
not inherit her husband's peerage. Isabelle was undoubtedly (to use
modern terms) Dowager Countess of Worcester or Isabelle, Lady
Worcester, but these are courtesy titles not peerages, and the only
person she could have transmitted the (entailed) peerage to was a son
by her first husband. Since such a son was never born the peerage
became extinct on the first Beauchamp's death, it ceased to be, it was
no more...

As has been mentioned Warwick illegally helped himself to much of
Elizabeth Beauchamp's inheritance; he had no right but brute force to
do this, but even if he had had every right in law, he would still not
have had any valid claim on the earldom of Worcester, direct or
indirect, because he was not a Beauchamp. He might at best (in those
circumstances) have hoped to have it revived for him as a new creation,
but this would have been a privilege, not a right. This is what
happened in the case of his Warwick title, which was a new creation for
him.

Brian W

brian, by far and away i am NOT an expert on medieval inheritance law. however, on several occassions i have noticed a surviving spouse "carrying" forward titles born by the deceased spouse.

one of the more interesting of these is the d'lisle title. this title passed into the talbot line via margaret beauchamp.

her son john talbot passed the title on to his daughter elizabeth. she passed it to her son john. he to his daughter elizabeth, betrothed to charles brandon. brandon was also granted her wardship. brandon took the d'lisle title and revenues. elizabeth refuted her betrothal to brandon and then married henry courtney, son of katherine plantagenet, dau of e4.

elizabeth died circa 1519. brandon still held the d'lisle title. circa 1522, elizabeth's aunt, sister of john had the d'lisle title returned to her and her second husband, arthur waite plantagenet. the 6th baroness lisle died. her husband arthur, then married honour grenville. they were both known as lord and lady lisle.

when arthur died, the title was revised and renamed and passed on to elizabeth, the 6th baronesses' descent line.

we also have cecily, the younger neville known as the lady worcester via her marriage to henry beauchamp. cecily m. john tiptoft. tiptoft then has the title bestowed upon himself..by the right of cecily..she legally was known as lady worcester.

just to be clear..i am not saying there was a "legal" inheritance of title..but definitely a "claimed" entitlement. tiptoft ensured his right by having the king grant him the title of lord worcester.

it would appear that while an individual may not have had a true and clear entitlement to the title..they did pass it on via surviving spouses..with or without issue.

following the letter of the law was not imperitive if one had the monarchy behind them..the lisle title is more than clear proof of that. i have to wonder if the 6th baroness lisle would have had the title returned if she had married some one other than the king's uncle..after all the king's best friend and brother in law had legally "stolen" the title from a little girl, her niece.

and..i'm away for the next couple of days.
roslyn

Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both named
richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to her
second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son henry.

With all respect Roslyn, I don't follow your logic here. A woman does
not inherit her husband's peerage. Isabelle was undoubtedly (to use
modern terms) Dowager Countess of Worcester or Isabelle, Lady
Worcester, but these are courtesy titles not peerages, and the only
person she could have transmitted the (entailed) peerage to was a son
by her first husband. Since such a son was never born the peerage
became extinct on the first Beauchamp's death, it ceased to be, it was
no more...

As has been mentioned Warwick illegally helped himself to much of
Elizabeth Beauchamp's inheritance; he had no right but brute force to
do this, but even if he had had every right in law, he would still not
have had any valid claim on the earldom of Worcester, direct or
indirect, because he was not a Beauchamp. He might at best (in those
circumstances) have hoped to have it revived for him as a new creation,
but this would have been a privilege, not a right. This is what
happened in the case of his Warwick title, which was a new creation for
him.

Brian W

Someone correct me if I`m wrong, but I think the
difference between Elizabeth Talbot and the Countess
of Worcester was, that Elizabeth Talbot was part of
the peerage in her own right. She didn`t have just
a courtesy title by being just the wife of a peer.

Elizabeth Hopton only became Countess of Worcester
by courtesy of being the wife of the created Earl of
Worcester, John Tiptoft. Her title had no binding in
law as to inheritance, except for the Earl`s issue.
There was only one...Edward. After Edward died
without issue, the title once again became extinct.

Just to clarify this matter further. Would I be right
in saying that if Elizabeth Hopton, the Countess of
Worcester had supposedly had a surviving daughter
to John Tiptoft, then that female issue would have
inherited the title in her own right (i.e. as with
Elizabeth Talbot, who was direct issue of a peer)
and as such be able to continue the line, and also
endow any future husband with the title?

Question...is the assumed title of a peer`s
daughter`s spouse treated in like manner,
i.e. purely as a courtesy title?

Alan

=============

> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > brian, by far and away i am NOT an expert on medieval inheritance
> law. however, on several occassions i have noticed a surviving
> spouse "carrying" forward titles born by the deceased spouse.
> >
> > one of the more interesting of these is the d'lisle title. this
> title passed into the talbot line via margaret beauchamp.
> >
> > her son john talbot passed the title on to his daughter
> elizabeth. she passed it to her son john. he to his daughter
> elizabeth, betrothed to charles brandon. brandon was also granted
her
> wardship. brandon took the d'lisle title and revenues. elizabeth
> refuted her betrothal to brandon and then married henry courtney,
son
> of katherine plantagenet, dau of e4.
> >
> > elizabeth died circa 1519. brandon still held the d'lisle
title.
> circa 1522, elizabeth's aunt, sister of john had the d'lisle title
> returned to her and her second husband, arthur waite plantagenet.
the
> 6th baroness lisle died. her husband arthur, then married honour
> grenville. they were both known as lord and lady lisle.
> >
> > when arthur died, the title was revised and renamed and passed
on
> to elizabeth, the 6th baronesses' descent line.
> >
> > we also have cecily, the younger neville known as the lady
> worcester via her marriage to henry beauchamp. cecily m. john
> tiptoft. tiptoft then has the title bestowed upon himself..by the
> right of cecily..she legally was known as lady worcester.
> >
> > just to be clear..i am not saying there was a "legal"
inheritance
> of title..but definitely a "claimed" entitlement. tiptoft ensured
his
> right by having the king grant him the title of lord worcester.
> >
> > it would appear that while an individual may not have had a
true
> and clear entitlement to the title..they did pass it on via
surviving
> spouses..with or without issue.
> >
> > following the letter of the law was not imperitive if one had
the
> monarchy behind them..the lisle title is more than clear proof of
> that. i have to wonder if the 6th baroness lisle would have had the
> title returned if she had married some one other than the king's
> uncle..after all the king's best friend and brother in law had
> legally "stolen" the title from a little girl, her niece.
> >
> > and..i'm away for the next couple of days.
> > roslyn
> >
> > Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > --- In , fayre
rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > you are right about isabel de la spencer mx2..cousins both
named
> > richard beauchamp. obviously isabel took the worcester title to
her
> > second husband, richard beauchamp..and then passed it to her son
> henry.
> >
> > With all respect Roslyn, I don't follow your logic here. A woman
> does
> > not inherit her husband's peerage. Isabelle was undoubtedly (to
use
> > modern terms) Dowager Countess of Worcester or Isabelle, Lady
> > Worcester, but these are courtesy titles not peerages, and the
only
> > person she could have transmitted the (entailed) peerage to was a
> son
> > by her first husband. Since such a son was never born the peerage
> > became extinct on the first Beauchamp's death, it ceased to be,
it
> was
> > no more...
> >
> > As has been mentioned Warwick illegally helped himself to much of
> > Elizabeth Beauchamp's inheritance; he had no right but brute
force
> to
> > do this, but even if he had had every right in law, he would
still
> not
> > have had any valid claim on the earldom of Worcester, direct or
> > indirect, because he was not a Beauchamp. He might at best (in
> those
> > circumstances) have hoped to have it revived for him as a new
> creation,
> > but this would have been a privilege, not a right. This is what
> > happened in the case of his Warwick title, which was a new
creation
> for
> > him.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

At 00:08 05/09/2007, Alan wrote:
>Question...is the assumed title of a peer`s
>daughter`s spouse treated in like manner,
>i.e. purely as a courtesy title?

It isn't a courtesy title. Blanche, daughter of the duke of Lancaster, was
eventually his only child (didn't her sister die?), so she inherited
everything he had *except* his title. John of Gaunt needed a rich wife and
became first duke of Lancaster in that creation. It was nice for husbands
of rich women to acquire their father-in-law's titles, where available, but
it was the gift of the monarch, not a right. The same sort of thing
happened with the Warwick title.

It was different in Scotland, where daughters could inherit titles.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Thanks Christine. So how does that actually pan out in
respect of continuation and inheritance of titles?
(Forgive me if I seem a tad obtuse.)

Alan

============

--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> At 00:08 05/09/2007, Alan wrote:
> >Question...is the assumed title of a peer`s
> >daughter`s spouse treated in like manner,
> >i.e. purely as a courtesy title?
>
> It isn't a courtesy title. Blanche, daughter of the duke of
Lancaster, was
> eventually his only child (didn't her sister die?), so she
inherited
> everything he had *except* his title. John of Gaunt needed a rich
wife and
> became first duke of Lancaster in that creation. It was nice for
husbands
> of rich women to acquire their father-in-law's titles, where
available, but
> it was the gift of the monarch, not a right. The same sort of thing
> happened with the Warwick title.
>
> It was different in Scotland, where daughters could inherit titles.
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Christine. So how does that actually pan out in
> respect of continuation and inheritance of titles?
> (Forgive me if I seem a tad obtuse.)
>
> Alan

If I can chip in again, because the point doesn't seem to have been
brought out, by the 15th C most (read virtually all from about 1380)
titles granted (or regranted) were limited to heir male and so became
extinct with the last male heir of that line. However, certain titles,
particularly ancient baronies *could* (and still can) be inherited by a
woman. In the middle ages this meant little practical difference since
a woman was not allowed to sit in parliament anyway, but *sometimes*
(and I am not sure off hand of the chronology) a man was given a
peerage 'in the right of his wife'.
Either way her legitimate son (or daughter) could inherit the title.

A good example is the barony of Strange, which merged with the Stanley
family in the 15th C, but when the direct male line of Stanley failed
in the 17th C went a different way to the Derby earldom. (To a daughter
instead of a male cousin.)

Land is another pigeon altogether. It might or might not be entailed
with the title. Again to use a familiar example, Margaret Beaufort's
dad was Duke of Somerset. As she was a woman she didn't get the title,
which went to her uncle, but she did get most of the land, because it
was unentailed. So the new Somerset (and his sons) had a proverbial
pie's nest to maintain a dukedom. This is how some earls nowadays drive
buses or work as police officers for a living!

Brian W

Tiptoft's principal seat was in Wimbish, Essex. Other properties
I've encountered are:

Enfield (Middlesex)

Nether Wallop (Hants)

Brockenhurst (Hants)

Regarding Holt, I think that was part of the Mowbray inheritance.

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they could
be
> located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not
sure how
> he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
(Exchanged with
> Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
>
> Brian
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Christine. So how does that actually pan out in
> respect of continuation and inheritance of titles?
> (Forgive me if I seem a tad obtuse.)
>
> Alan
>
> ============
>
> --- In , Christine H
> <christinelheadley@> wrote:
> >
> > At 00:08 05/09/2007, Alan wrote:
> > >Question...is the assumed title of a peer`s
> > >daughter`s spouse treated in like manner,
> > >i.e. purely as a courtesy title?
> >
> > It isn't a courtesy title. Blanche, daughter of the duke of
> Lancaster, was
> > eventually his only child (didn't her sister die?), so she
> inherited
> > everything he had *except* his title. John of Gaunt needed a rich
> wife and
> > became first duke of Lancaster in that creation. It was nice for
> husbands
> > of rich women to acquire their father-in-law's titles, where
> available, but
> > it was the gift of the monarch, not a right. The same sort of
thing
> > happened with the Warwick title.
> >
> > It was different in Scotland, where daughters could inherit
titles.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > Christine Headley
> > Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
> >
>
The phrase is "in suo jure". Not only did John of Gaunt hijack his
wife's Duchy like this there were the Greys marrying the Brandons and
taking the Duchy of Suffolk, the Devereaux marrying the Bourchiers to
take the Earldom of Essex, the Mowbrays succeeded by the Howards and,
of course, William Howard marrying the Stafford heiress in c.1637.

The present Earl of Loudoun (retired truck driver Down Under) is not
Earl of Huntingdon because of different conditions to the creations.

After the interesting and informative discussion
about inheritance of titles etc., what would be
the general consensus on Buckingham`s remark to
Morton about the Lady Margaret`s visit, as to who
"our ladie of Worcester" might be? The question
which actually started the discussion.

a) The statue of the Madonna?,
b) Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester?, or
c) A.N. Other?

Alan

===============

The "Tiptoft family seat" was at Nettlestead in Suffolk, but due to extinction this had passed out of the family by Richard III's time, as had Langor in Notts.
The Tiptoft Earl of Worcester was from a junior branch and so had to cobble together an estate from bits and pieces. The Brockenhurst estate for example was part of their share of the Holland Duke of Kents lands, which were partitioned amongst numerous heiresses. The main seat of Earl John at Wimbish was inherited from a Rothes Grand (GreatGrand?) mother.
As far as I can tell he had no property whatsoever in Worcestershire, which shows that by this time the ancient attachment of titles to counties was extinct.

yorkistjoe <joe.schweninger@...> wrote:
Tiptoft's principal seat was in Wimbish, Essex. Other properties
I've encountered are:

Enfield (Middlesex)

Nether Wallop (Hants)

Brockenhurst (Hants)

Regarding Holt, I think that was part of the Mowbray inheritance.

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they could
be
> located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not
sure how
> he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
(Exchanged with
> Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
>
> Brian
>






---------------------------------
For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.

Hi, All!



Just as an amateur historianýs comment . . . It seems to me that ýOurý Lady
of Worcester would be more likely to refer to the Madonna or the church
mentioned. ýMyý Lady of Worcester would be more likely used, I would think,
in the case of an individual referred to by her title. Does this make sense?



Johanne



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

For lovers of all things Peter Jackson ý

From Bad Taste to Lord of the Rings -

and beyond!!!

it's PJlovers !!!

Become a Charter Member and share your

enthusiasm for everything PJ on a

moderated list with other astute fans!



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o



To join or to find out more -

HYPERLINK
"http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/PJlovers/"http://movies.groups.yahoo.c
om/group/PJlovers/



or email ý Johanne L. Tournier

(aka Crystal Goodbody) - Listowner/Moderator

HYPERLINK "mailto:jltournier@..."jltournier@...



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o



"Pain is temporary - film is *forever*!"

- Peter Jackson

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of alanth252
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Find the lady!



After the interesting and informative discussion
about inheritance of titles etc., what would be
the general consensus on Buckingham`s remark to
Morton about the Lady Margaret`s visit, as to who
"our ladie of Worcester" might be? The question
which actually started the discussion.

a) The statue of the Madonna?,
b) Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester?, or
c) A.N. Other?

Alan





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.5/990 - Release Date: 9/4/2007
10:36 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.5/990 - Release Date: 9/4/2007
10:36 PM

It should be remembered that different inheritance laws apply in
different countries.
The Ultimate example of this was the split between the United
Kingdom and Hanover on the death of William IV. Under German law
Hanover went to the heir male - and so continued in the Guelf line,
while the UK went to the heir general - Queen Victoria.
As far as men holding titles in right of their wives remember that a
woman's property became that of her husband on marriage, and
Baronies seem to have been aquired in the same way. Henry VIII
modified this so that a man could only hold a peerage in right of
his wife AFTER a legitimate heir had been produced.
In the medieval period baronies were even partitioned between
daughters like estates, so that in the 13th/14th centuries there
were often more barons than baronies. In practice most Earldoms and
Dukedoms were allowed to be inherited through females, though as has
been mentioned this technically required a new creation.
The most prominent example of this during Richard's reign was the
Mowbray inheritance. This included the Dukedom of Norfolk and the
original Mowbray title Earl of Nottingham. Edward IV had married his
second son to the Mowbray heiress, but on her death the rightful
heirs were Lords Howard and Berkeley. Richard granted the Dukedom of
Norfolk and it's Brotherton lands to Howard, while Berkeley got the
Mowbray lands and became Earl of Nottingham.
Cynics would say this was just Richard buying the support of
prominent Kulaks, but the recipients would have regarded the estates
and titles as their rightful inheritance.

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Christine. So how does that actually pan out in
> > respect of continuation and inheritance of titles?
> > (Forgive me if I seem a tad obtuse.)
> >
> > Alan
>
> If I can chip in again, because the point doesn't seem to have
been
> brought out, by the 15th C most (read virtually all from about
1380)
> titles granted (or regranted) were limited to heir male and so
became
> extinct with the last male heir of that line. However, certain
titles,
> particularly ancient baronies *could* (and still can) be inherited
by a
> woman. In the middle ages this meant little practical difference
since
> a woman was not allowed to sit in parliament anyway, but
*sometimes*
> (and I am not sure off hand of the chronology) a man was given a
> peerage 'in the right of his wife'.
> Either way her legitimate son (or daughter) could inherit the
title.
>
> A good example is the barony of Strange, which merged with the
Stanley
> family in the 15th C, but when the direct male line of Stanley
failed
> in the 17th C went a different way to the Derby earldom. (To a
daughter
> instead of a male cousin.)
>
> Land is another pigeon altogether. It might or might not be
entailed
> with the title. Again to use a familiar example, Margaret
Beaufort's
> dad was Duke of Somerset. As she was a woman she didn't get the
title,
> which went to her uncle, but she did get most of the land, because
it
> was unentailed. So the new Somerset (and his sons) had a
proverbial
> pie's nest to maintain a dukedom. This is how some earls nowadays
drive
> buses or work as police officers for a living!
>
> Brian W
>

For what it`s worth the Madonna has my vote if only
because of semantics. If the term had been "my ladie"
or "the ladie", I would go for a real person, but I
can`t get away from the religion term universally
given to the Madonna as "our ladie". If there was a
real person to be visited at the same time it would,
in my mind, be John Alcock, the Bishop of Worcester
and former tutor of the Edward V and his brother.

But what would be the purpose of such a meeting?

Alan

=============

--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All!
>
>
>
> Just as an amateur historian's comment . . . It seems to me
that "Our" Lady
> of Worcester would be more likely to refer to the Madonna or the
church
> mentioned. "My" Lady of Worcester would be more likely used, I
would think,
> in the case of an individual referred to by her title. Does this
make sense?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
>
> For lovers of all things Peter Jackson –
>
> From Bad Taste to Lord of the Rings -
>
> and beyond!!!
>
> it's PJlovers !!!
>
> Become a Charter Member and share your
>
> enthusiasm for everything PJ on a
>
> moderated list with other astute fans!
>
>
>
> o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
>
>
>
> To join or to find out more -
>
> HYPERLINK
> "http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/PJlovers/"http://movies.groups
.yahoo.c
> om/group/PJlovers/
>
>
>
> or email – Johanne L. Tournier
>
> (aka Crystal Goodbody) - Listowner/Moderator
>
> HYPERLINK "mailto:jltournier@..."jltournier@...
>
>
>
> o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
>
>
>
> "Pain is temporary - film is *forever*!"
>
> - Peter Jackson
>
> o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
alanth252
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Find the lady!
>
>
>
> After the interesting and informative discussion
> about inheritance of titles etc., what would be
> the general consensus on Buckingham`s remark to
> Morton about the Lady Margaret`s visit, as to who
> "our ladie of Worcester" might be? The question
> which actually started the discussion.
>
> a) The statue of the Madonna?,
> b) Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester?, or
> c) A.N. Other?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.5/990 - Release Date:
9/4/2007
> 10:36 PM
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.5/990 - Release Date:
9/4/2007
> 10:36 PM
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All!
>
>
>
> Just as an amateur historian's comment . . . It seems to me that
"Our" Lady
> of Worcester would be more likely to refer to the Madonna or the church
> mentioned. "My" Lady of Worcester would be more likely used, I would
think,
> in the case of an individual referred to by her title. Does this
make sense?
>

That makes the most sense to me, too.

Katy

From wiki --- "Following the division of the manor
of Holt in 1420, over 150 years passed before the
manor was recombined following a series of complex
transactions between the likes of Sir John Bourne,
Anthony Bourne, Thomas Fortescue, John and Martin
Crofts, and Sir Thomas Bromley." ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holt,_Worcestershire

If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
does anyone know if he was in residence there with
his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
in the year 1483?

I`ve requested info (just in hope) from Holt Castle,
the Hopton family, and the William Stanley Household.
I`ve yet to receive a reply. Are there any other
sources available to check this tenure and/or
residence(s) of Stanley and Hopton during this
period?

Alan

==============

--- In , "yorkistjoe"
<joe.schweninger@...> wrote:
>
> Tiptoft's principal seat was in Wimbish, Essex. Other properties
> I've encountered are:
>
> Enfield (Middlesex)
>
> Nether Wallop (Hants)
>
> Brockenhurst (Hants)
>
> Regarding Holt, I think that was part of the Mowbray inheritance.
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't recall the Tiptoft family seats, but I dare say they
could
> be
> > located with research. William Stanley's homes included Holt (not
> sure how
> > he got it, but granted by Edward IV or Richard III) Chirk
> (Exchanged with
> > Richard for Skipton) and Arley Hall, Cheshire.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
>>
> If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> in the year 1483?
>

Alan,

One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy but I
can't lay my hands on it right now.

Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance; it came
to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel died out
in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the earl's
sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby little
hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last Mowbray
duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I had an
idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I am
working from memory and that is fallible.

As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is how
much he owed to grants from Richard III.

Brian

Thanks Brian. That would be helpful. There are two
Holt Castles. One near Wrexham in Wales, and one
near Worcester. Was it the Welsh one to which
Stanley obtained tenure, or the Worcester one?
If so then the likelihood of the Lady Margaret
visiting Elizabeth Hopton in Worcester has
diminished. Her meeting with Buckingham was on
the Bridgnorth to Worcester Rd, which would be
a strange route to Wrexham. If Hopton wasn`t the
"our ladie" referred to in Holinshed then surely
the assumption must made that "our ladie" was the
statue of the Madonna, and she was probably
visiting John Alcock at the same time.

Alan

===========


--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> > Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> > does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> > his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> > in the year 1483?
> >
>
> Alan,
>
> One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
> booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy but I
> can't lay my hands on it right now.
>
> Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance; it
came
> to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel died out
> in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the earl's
> sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby little
> hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last
Mowbray
> duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I had an
> idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I am
> working from memory and that is fallible.
>
> As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
> properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is how
> much he owed to grants from Richard III.
>
> Brian
>

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> That makes the most sense to me, too.
>
> Katy
>

To get back to the substantive point, I agree too, that the
construction 'Our lady' is unlikely to refer to anyone except the BVM.

(I suppose the exception might be when two servants of the same woman
were discussing her, but that hardly applies here!)

It was a roundabout, but very interesting trip, I thought.

Brian

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian. That would be helpful. There are two
> Holt Castles. One near Wrexham in Wales, and one
> near Worcester. Was it the Welsh one to which
> Stanley obtained tenure, or the Worcester one?

Alan, if you'd asked me before this discussion started, I'd have
unhesitatingly said the Welsh one, as Stanley had a whole clutch of
land thereabouts. Now I have to say I'm not sure without researching it.

I have sent you offlist a partial summary of WS's land, but even this
is not explicit.

Brian

I have read somewhere that Sir William Stanley's main residence was at Holt in North Wales, but will say no more than that, having just moved house and having all my books in boxes or still in store.

Ann

alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
Thanks Brian. That would be helpful. There are two
Holt Castles. One near Wrexham in Wales, and one
near Worcester. Was it the Welsh one to which
Stanley obtained tenure, or the Worcester one?
If so then the likelihood of the Lady Margaret
visiting Elizabeth Hopton in Worcester has
diminished. Her meeting with Buckingham was on
the Bridgnorth to Worcester Rd, which would be
a strange route to Wrexham. If Hopton wasn`t the
"our ladie" referred to in Holinshed then surely
the assumption must made that "our ladie" was the
statue of the Madonna, and she was probably
visiting John Alcock at the same time.

Alan

===========

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> > Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> > does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> > his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> > in the year 1483?
> >
>
> Alan,
>
> One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
> booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy but I
> can't lay my hands on it right now.
>
> Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance; it
came
> to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel died out
> in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the earl's
> sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby little
> hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last
Mowbray
> duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I had an
> idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I am
> working from memory and that is fallible.
>
> As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
> properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is how
> much he owed to grants from Richard III.
>
> Brian
>

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Brian. That would be helpful. There are two
> > Holt Castles. One near Wrexham in Wales, and one
> > near Worcester. Was it the Welsh one to which
> > Stanley obtained tenure, or the Worcester one?

Hooray - I have found the relevant book which is _Sir William Stanley
of Holt: A Yorkist Martyr_ by Jean M Gidman, Rosalba Press, 2003, and
well worth getting hold of if you can.

It appears that it's Holt in Wales, what we now call Denbighshire. When
Henry VII attainted him, 9 grand in cash *alone* was found there and in
his house at Ridley, Cheshire. Holt was granted to him (among other
properties) by Richard III in the aftermath of Buckingham's revolt.

Brian W

Either way Brian that`s great. It means Elizabeth Hopton
can more or less be ruled out as "our ladie". The Madonna
must be favourite.

If perchance the Lady Margaret did visit Worcester, I feel
sure that she (given her rank) would (if he was in residence)
have visited John Alcock. Perhaps that was the main reason
for her visit. But why? Plans for the rebellion perhaps?
Or as ex-tutor of the princes would he have been consulted on
other nefarious matters?

Alan

============

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Brian. That would be helpful. There are two
> > > Holt Castles. One near Wrexham in Wales, and one
> > > near Worcester. Was it the Welsh one to which
> > > Stanley obtained tenure, or the Worcester one?
>
> Hooray - I have found the relevant book which is _Sir William
Stanley
> of Holt: A Yorkist Martyr_ by Jean M Gidman, Rosalba Press, 2003,
and
> well worth getting hold of if you can.
>
> It appears that it's Holt in Wales, what we now call Denbighshire.
When
> Henry VII attainted him, 9 grand in cash *alone* was found there
and in
> his house at Ridley, Cheshire. Holt was granted to him (among other
> properties) by Richard III in the aftermath of Buckingham's revolt.
>
> Brian W
>

as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence reads thus:

"Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."

the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot bloodline)

AUGUST 1483
11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
26 commission of the peace for Somerset.

it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet margaret in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his way to or in suffolkshire.

we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told about r3 and his era/reign.

why then should we take for face value the story of buckingham meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records show a different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's chronicle?

remember this "is" morton telling buckingham's story, or is it margaret herself repeating the events of worcestershire? who ever related the story did a wonderful bit of spin doctoring and rewriting of history.

if you read a few lines past the chance encounter, buckingham reinforces the "idea", concept that margaret went to our lady vs my/the lady by stating "(which now a daies be gone a pilgrimage)".

this bracketed comment is neatly squeezed in while buckingham mulls over h7's superiour claim to the throne via john of gaunt.

but to me, in this dialogue, most importantly, why does buckingham not consider his more superiour claim via thomas woodstock, and most of all his BOHUN ancestral claim via the marriage of woodstock?

i sincerely doubt buckingham would have forgotten the inheritance...yet, in holindshed it is not mentioned..only h7's superiour claim because buckingham's ancestor was a younger son. it doesn't wash with me folks.

this above is a primary reason, i believe margaret went off to see elizabeth hopton alias, mrs. william stanley vs the..let's present margaret as a wonderfully pious woman on her way to "our" ladie of worcester to pray.

margaret's inlaws could have been manipulated into believing r3 would make a claim to the title of Worcester via R3's wife anne neville, dau of anne beauchamp...sister of henry beauchamp whose wife/widow was kingmaker's younger sister cicely, a neice of cecily mother of e4, r3, et al.

the widowed sister, cecily then married tiptoft. h6 created him earl of worcester in 1449. cecily d. 1450. tiptoft carried the title to his new wife eliz hopton. tiptoft is executed..and eliz hopton held the title of lady of worcester for her and john's son edward tiptoft.

it is my opinion margret went to lady worcester to rally the troops aka support for buckingham's rebellion.

i do not put anything past the beaufort/tudor spin doctoring. i question it all. it needs to be substantiated with fact.
fact 1. buckingham went to suffolk not shrewsbury
fact 2. buckingham was significantly aware of his superiour claim via his bohun ancestry. only a month earlier he was angered by r3 for not immediately giving it to him.
fact 3. margaret and morton were excedingly ambitious..telling lies and bending the truth was not above nor beneath them.

here's the holinshed page that started this discussion with alan and i off forum.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1977

roslyn


Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> That makes the most sense to me, too.
>
> Katy
>

To get back to the substantive point, I agree too, that the
construction 'Our lady' is unlikely to refer to anyone except the BVM.

(I suppose the exception might be when two servants of the same woman
were discussing her, but that hardly applies here!)

It was a roundabout, but very interesting trip, I thought.

Brian

I've long been trying to trace the partition and descent of the
Fitzalan lands for my kingmaker cards.
As I understand it the new male line got little more than Arundel
castle and the title of Earl that supposedly went with tenure of the
castle. However the other lands were partitioned between four
sisters, so legally the Mowbrays should have obtained only a quarter
of the estates this way. The second sister Elizabeth married Thomas
Mowbray to became countess of Nottingham and mother of the first
Duke of Norfolk, but later married (as her fourth husband) one
Robert Goushill, and one of HIS co-heirs married Thomas Stanley, so
I have always though Holt in north Wales may have come to the
Stanleys by this roundabout route.
Lord Stanley's arms bear a quarter of FitzAlan presumably in
reference to this line of descent, although as I understand it
Elizabeth's share of the estates should all have gone to her first
husband and their joint offspring.
The eldest co-heir (Joan) married William Beauchamp and became lady
Bergavenney, and another (Alice) is aledged to have born a daughter
to Cardinal Beaufort.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZALAN.htm

I would be grateful if anyone has details of how the FitzAlan
estates (other than Arundel) descended down to the 16th century.

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> > Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> > does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> > his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> > in the year 1483?
> >
>
> Alan,
>
> One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
> booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy but
I
> can't lay my hands on it right now.
>
> Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance; it
came
> to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel died
out
> in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the earl's
> sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby little
> hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last
Mowbray
> duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I had an
> idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I am
> working from memory and that is fallible.
>
> As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
> properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is how
> much he owed to grants from Richard III.
>
> Brian
>

Correction: Thomas Lord Stanley actually bore a quarter of Warenne,
the old Earls of Surrey, of whom the FitzAlans obtained all the
southern estates (the northern Warenne estates formed the core of
the Duchy of York).
It was the Warennes who built Holt castle so presumably the Welsh
and border estates were included in the "southern" half and awarded
to FitzAlan along with the likes of Lewes and Reigate.
Interesting question as to the Stanley's entitlement to bare arms of
Warenne in right of descent from an heiress (Elizabeth FitzAlan),
even though that heiress had (I think) carried all her estates to a
previous husband.

http://www.castlewales.com/holt.html

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I've long been trying to trace the partition and descent of the
> Fitzalan lands for my kingmaker cards.
> As I understand it the new male line got little more than Arundel
> castle and the title of Earl that supposedly went with tenure of
the
> castle. However the other lands were partitioned between four
> sisters, so legally the Mowbrays should have obtained only a
quarter
> of the estates this way. The second sister Elizabeth married
Thomas
> Mowbray to became countess of Nottingham and mother of the first
> Duke of Norfolk, but later married (as her fourth husband) one
> Robert Goushill, and one of HIS co-heirs married Thomas Stanley,
so
> I have always though Holt in north Wales may have come to the
> Stanleys by this roundabout route.
> Lord Stanley's arms bear a quarter of FitzAlan presumably in
> reference to this line of descent, although as I understand it
> Elizabeth's share of the estates should all have gone to her first
> husband and their joint offspring.
> The eldest co-heir (Joan) married William Beauchamp and became
lady
> Bergavenney, and another (Alice) is aledged to have born a
daughter
> to Cardinal Beaufort.
>
> http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZALAN.htm
>
> I would be grateful if anyone has details of how the FitzAlan
> estates (other than Arundel) descended down to the 16th century.
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> > > Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> > > does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> > > his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> > > in the year 1483?
> > >
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
> > booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy
but
> I
> > can't lay my hands on it right now.
> >
> > Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance; it
> came
> > to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel died
> out
> > in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the
earl's
> > sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby
little
> > hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last
> Mowbray
> > duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I had
an
> > idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I am
> > working from memory and that is fallible.
> >
> > As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
> > properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is
how
> > much he owed to grants from Richard III.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>

Details on the Warren-FitzAlan-Goushill-Stanley connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Gousell

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Correction: Thomas Lord Stanley actually bore a quarter of
Warenne,
> the old Earls of Surrey, of whom the FitzAlans obtained all the
> southern estates (the northern Warenne estates formed the core of
> the Duchy of York).
> It was the Warennes who built Holt castle so presumably the Welsh
> and border estates were included in the "southern" half and
awarded
> to FitzAlan along with the likes of Lewes and Reigate.
> Interesting question as to the Stanley's entitlement to bare arms
of
> Warenne in right of descent from an heiress (Elizabeth FitzAlan),
> even though that heiress had (I think) carried all her estates to
a
> previous husband.
>
> http://www.castlewales.com/holt.html
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > I've long been trying to trace the partition and descent of the
> > Fitzalan lands for my kingmaker cards.
> > As I understand it the new male line got little more than
Arundel
> > castle and the title of Earl that supposedly went with tenure of
> the
> > castle. However the other lands were partitioned between four
> > sisters, so legally the Mowbrays should have obtained only a
> quarter
> > of the estates this way. The second sister Elizabeth married
> Thomas
> > Mowbray to became countess of Nottingham and mother of the first
> > Duke of Norfolk, but later married (as her fourth husband) one
> > Robert Goushill, and one of HIS co-heirs married Thomas Stanley,
> so
> > I have always though Holt in north Wales may have come to the
> > Stanleys by this roundabout route.
> > Lord Stanley's arms bear a quarter of FitzAlan presumably in
> > reference to this line of descent, although as I understand it
> > Elizabeth's share of the estates should all have gone to her
first
> > husband and their joint offspring.
> > The eldest co-heir (Joan) married William Beauchamp and became
> lady
> > Bergavenney, and another (Alice) is aledged to have born a
> daughter
> > to Cardinal Beaufort.
> >
> > http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZALAN.htm
> >
> > I would be grateful if anyone has details of how the FitzAlan
> > estates (other than Arundel) descended down to the 16th century.
> >
> > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "alanth252"
> > > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > > If Sir William Stanley did gain tenure for Holt
> > > > Castle (presumably near Worcester and not in Wales),
> > > > does anyone know if he was in residence there with
> > > > his wife Elizabeth Hopton, Countess of Worcester,
> > > > in the year 1483?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Alan,
> > >
> > > One of the Yorkshire branch members has written an interesting
> > > booklet on William Stanley, which may help you. I have a copy
> but
> > I
> > > can't lay my hands on it right now.
> > >
> > > Holt in Wales was definitely part of the Mowbray inheritance;
it
> > came
> > > to them from the Fitzalans when the senior line of Arundel
died
> > out
> > > in the male line 1415 and the unentailed stuff went to the
> earl's
> > > sisters and their heirs. However, Edward IV got his grubby
> little
> > > hands on the Mowbray inheritance after the death of the last
> > Mowbray
> > > duke, when Richard Duke of York married Anne Mowbray, and I
had
> an
> > > idea that Holt Castle went to WS. I may be totally wrong as I
am
> > > working from memory and that is fallible.
> > >
> > > As an aside, I do have a partial list of William Stanley's
> > > properties, and one of the more remarkable things about it is
> how
> > > much he owed to grants from Richard III.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> >
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our
ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence reads
thus:
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I
shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie of
Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
>
> the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot bloodline)
>
> AUGUST 1483
> 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
>
> it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet margaret
in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his way
to or in suffolkshire.



I'd say that whenever we hear of Buckingham being someplace he
logically shouldn't be, or saying he was someplace he shouldn't have
been at the time, and probably was somewhere else he didn't want to
disclose, it bears closer examination.

Especially here weeks before his strange "rebellion" and not long
after those pesky "princes in the Tower" were last seen.

Katy

--- In , Wayne Ingalls
<wayne.ingalls@...> wrote:
>
> Unless I am mistaken, Our Lady of Worcester was a much venerated
statue of the Virgin Mary in Worcester.
>
> LML,
> Wayne
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> In the last paragraph of the Holinshed page 410 ---
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/holinshed/h-410.htm ---
>
> The Duke of Buckingham is telling of a chance
> meeting between him and the Lady Margaret on the
> Bridgnorth to Worcester road. He goes on to say...
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concerning
> hir sonne, as I shall shew you after, and were
> departed, shee to our ladie of Worcester, and
> I to Shrewsburie:..."
>
> I first thought the lady of Worcester might be
> Elizabeth Herbert, the first wife of Sir Charles
> Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, but they weren`t
> married until 1492. I have searched high and low,
> but I can`t see any other woman who could have
> been referred to as "our ladie of Worcester".
>
> Has anyone any idea who this lady might have been?

Hi Alan,

In general, this was Worcester Cathedral, dedicated to Our Lady (I've
had to do a little research on this area recently, as it happens).
Specifically, sh would no doubt have been heading for the statue of
Our Lady inside.
A couple of interesting snippets about this statue. In 1480 someone
stole all the gold, silver & jewels in which it was draped - the
Bishop gave a 15-day amnesty for the return of the stuff but I don't
know if this worked. In 1486, when Humphrey Stafford of Grafton (a
few miles north of Droitwich) raised his West midlands rebellion in
favour of the earl of Warwick, he and his men gained entry to the
Worcester by claiming he came "for his devotion, to offer to Our Lady
where she standeth".

I wonder how accurate this scenario of Holinshed's is - Margaret
Beaufort only had one property in the whole of Worcestershire (the
fee-farm of Droitwich [then usually known as plain Wyche], a few
miles north of Worcester). John Alcock, the then Bishop of Worcester,
did not get involved in Buck's Rebellion as far as I recall (can
anyone help me here?) and anyway almost never visited Worcester.
Perhaps Holinshed was imagining that John Morton's "nephew" and
protege Robert Morton was already Bishop of Worcester (he did not get
that job till late 1486, but unlike Alcock was frequently in
residence as Bishop) and was insinuating that Margaret B. was off to
conspire with him - maybe. Does anyone know how this fits in with the
known movements of herself and Buckingham?

Incidentally, Alan, don't give up hope on Mancini. I got my copy
second-hand for £3.

Marie

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> Whistones Priory, a Cistercian house, was situated just outside
> Worcester. It was dedicated to St Mary Magdalene, which probably
> explains the reference to Out Lady of Worcester.

I had a Catholic upbringing. "Our Lady" would mean specifically the
Virgin Mary, not a human aristocrat (who would be "my Lady") or St Mary
Magdalene (or any other female saint, come to that). I am quite sure
this was Worcester Cathedral, which was always referred to as Our Lady
of Worcester or St Mary's, Worcester.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our
ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence reads
thus:
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I
shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie of
Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
>
> the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot bloodline)
>
> AUGUST 1483
> 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
>
> it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet margaret
in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his way
to or in suffolkshire.

Hi again folks,

Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two posts
but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
responding as I go.
I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went to all
these places. The very top people under the king got appointed to a
lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what went on -
they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of them.
Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know? On
balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought Buckingham
was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either side of
gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write a
letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on 18
August?



>
> we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
about r3 and his era/reign.
>
> why then should we take for face value the story of buckingham
meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records show a
different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's chronicle?

I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she went to
confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared friendship
with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that Alcock was
with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right through the
progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on the
list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone would
like.

i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't comment on his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia. i picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the woodville brothers, aside from who they married.

stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land holdings in suffolk.

i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled to the designation. but, given the political climate early in richard's reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.

it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned for, just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue creature. now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our
ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence reads
thus:
>
> "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I
shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie of
Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
>
> the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot bloodline)
>
> AUGUST 1483
> 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
>
> it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet margaret
in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his way
to or in suffolkshire.

Hi again folks,

Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two posts
but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
responding as I go.
I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went to all
these places. The very top people under the king got appointed to a
lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what went on -
they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of them.
Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know? On
balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought Buckingham
was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either side of
gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write a
letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on 18
August?

>
> we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
about r3 and his era/reign.
>
> why then should we take for face value the story of buckingham
meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records show a
different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's chronicle?

I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she went to
confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared friendship
with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that Alcock was
with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right through the
progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on the
list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone would
like.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't comment on
his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia. i
picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
woodville brothers, aside from who they married.
>
> stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land holdings
in suffolk.
>
> i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled to
the designation. but, given the political climate early in richard's
reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
>
> it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned for,
just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue creature.
now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our
> ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence
reads
> thus:
> >
> > "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I
> shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie of
> Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
> >
> > the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
> after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
> direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
> buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
> descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot
bloodline)
> >
> > AUGUST 1483
> > 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> > 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> > 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
> >
> > it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet margaret
> in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his
way
> to or in suffolkshire.
>
> Hi again folks,
>
> Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two posts
> but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
> responding as I go.
> I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
> puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went to
all
> these places. The very top people under the king got appointed to a
> lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what went
on -
> they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of them.
> Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know? On
> balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought
Buckingham
> was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either side
of
> gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write a
> letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on 18
> August?
>
> >
> > we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
> about r3 and his era/reign.
> >
> > why then should we take for face value the story of buckingham
> meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records show a
> different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's chronicle?
>
> I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she went
to
> confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared friendship
> with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that Alcock
was
> with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right through
the
> progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on the
> list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone would
> like.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There was a Stafford estate in NW Suffolk near Bury and it was
forfeited in 1521 when the 3rd Duke was attainted. It became a
conference centre but closed down a year or two before Mid-Anglia
Group could visit it. It started with H but I am struggling for the
exact name.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't comment on
his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia. i
picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
woodville brothers, aside from who they married.

Hi roslyn,
I only asked because I had emailed you the information once. I've
checked - it was 22nd August. This suggests to me that either
Buckingham or his wife (Lionel's sister), or both, were at Thornbury
on that date.

>
> stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land holdings
in suffolk.
>
> i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled to
the designation. but, given the political climate early in richard's
reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.

Or Buckingham may not have been bothered since he was busy with
matters of his own. If we had the records from those commissions it
would be possible to find out, but looking at the TNA catalogue I
can't see anything surviving in the KB9 series for Richard's reign
earlier than the Easter term of 1484.
>
> it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned for,
just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue creature.
now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.

I didn't know about that pardon, but then I haven't researched Alcock
as such. He had been president of Edward V's council as Prince of
Wales, so is likely to have been sympathetic to attempts to restore
him to the throne. Though remaining on Richard's council as King
throuhout his reign, he was also trusted by Tudor when he became
King - he was appointed as a stop-gap Chancellor until after Morton's
return to England, and in that capacity opened Henry's first
parliament. The wikipeadia write-up on him says he was one of those
ho pressed Henry in parliament to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth, but I don't know what the evidence is. Apart from the
Parliament Rolls, which I haven't checked but which essentially only
give the text of the opening speech and the Acts passed, the main
source for Henry's first parliamentary session is a report compiled
by the Colchester MPs. This relates that the Speaker, Sir Thomas
Lovell, presented a petition to henry from the Commons that he should
get on and marry Elizabeth, and this is immediately followed by the
description of Alcock proroguing the parliament. In January, however,
Alcock was a witness for both Henry and Elizabeth when they appointed
their proctors to approach the papal legate for the marriage
dispensation.
My main question, however, is whether Alcock was available to meet
Margaret Beaufort in Worcester. Even if he were with Richard on the
progress, there is just one possible date - on Tuesday 5 August, the
king was in Worcester, staying in the priory attached to the
cathedral. This was just three days after he had been in Gloucester
(where the Tudor writers would have us believe he quarrelled with
Buckingham). Does Holinshed give any idea when this meeting is
supposed to have occurred? Personally, I can't see Alcock having been
interested in Margaret's beloved son until the rumour had got round
that Edward V was dead. In early August dissidents were still focused
on restoring Edward V, and if Margaret Beaufort had other plans
Alcock is not the person she would have approached with them.

On the other hand, just how popular was Alcock with Henry VII? He
lost his chancellorship to Morton early in 1486, and I recently
encountered a document dating to shortly before Henry's coronation
which identified him as legally responsible for the 300-ft stretch of
roadway between Strand Cross and Charing Cross (where he had his
mansion), which the coronation procession would need to pass down,
and which was flooded and full of dangerous submerged potholes. He
was ordered to get in repaired immediately.

I take it Alcock's pardon was a "general pardon"? I get the
impression these usually relate to political disloyalty. Do you know
if there were any others receiving pardons at around the same time?
It suggests to me perhaps Alcock had been in touch with people aiming
to restore Edward V, but when he heard that the rebellion had been
hijacked and the princes were supposed to be dead he decided to have
nothing more to do with it, or at least managed to persuade Richard
that he was now clean. Kendall, however, suggests people often
requested pardons as an insurance policy. It is possible that Alcock
just feared he might come under suspicion because of his past links
with Edward V. Innocent people could be brought down by personal
enemies in these sorts of circumstances.

Roslyn, do you know the source(s) for these two pardons of Tyrell's?
I've not come across them in any primary source material yet though I
know Josephine Tey made a big issue of them in 'Daughter of Time'.
I've always had a suspicion that it may be two different documents
referring to the same pardon, but one of them got the month wrong.
that sort of thing is all too common, and the medieval forms of June
and July were very similar. Wasn't one the same day as the Battle of
Stoke, and the other the same day the following month? (or were they
1486?)? If they were 1487, it looks to me as if Tyrell received a
pardon to cover any links he might have had with the Lincoln-Lovell
rebels.

Hi Stephen, thanks for that. I think there's also a list of
Buckingam's forfeited estates in Harley 433.

By the way, Stephen, I have email gremlins again so if others don't
mind I'll use the forum to let you know I arrived home yesterday to
find the document had arrived from the Borthwick with apologies for
duff reference. It's not the best quality copy, but the best they
could produce. I'll have a look at it as soon as I can.

Marie


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't comment
on
> his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia. i
> picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
> woodville brothers, aside from who they married.
> >
> > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
> clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
holdings
> in suffolk.
> >
> > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled
to
> the designation. but, given the political climate early in
richard's
> reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
> >
> > it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned
for,
> just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue
creature.
> now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
> tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > --- In , fayre
rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > as much as i would like to go with the majority, regarding "our
> > ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence
> reads
> > thus:
> > >
> > > "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as I
> > shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie
of
> > Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
> > >
> > > the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
> > after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
> > direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
> > buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
> > descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot
> bloodline)
> > >
> > > AUGUST 1483
> > > 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> > > 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> > > 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
> > >
> > > it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet
margaret
> > in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on his
> way
> > to or in suffolkshire.
> >
> > Hi again folks,
> >
> > Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two
posts
> > but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
> > responding as I go.
> > I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
> > puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went to
> all
> > these places. The very top people under the king got appointed to
a
> > lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what went
> on -
> > they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of
them.
> > Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know? On
> > balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought
> Buckingham
> > was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either
side
> of
> > gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write a
> > letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on
18
> > August?
> >
> > >
> > > we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
> > about r3 and his era/reign.
> > >
> > > why then should we take for face value the story of buckingham
> > meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records show
a
> > different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's
chronicle?
> >
> > I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she
went
> to
> > confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared friendship
> > with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that Alcock
> was
> > with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right through
> the
> > progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on
the
> > list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone
would
> > like.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> There was a Stafford estate in NW Suffolk near Bury and it was
> forfeited in 1521 when the 3rd Duke was attainted. It became a
> conference centre but closed down a year or two before Mid-Anglia
> Group could visit it. It started with H but I am struggling for
the
> exact name.
>

Thornbury
> on that date.

Just realised we may be at cross-purposes. I was actually wondering
whether Buckingham had estates in suffolk that might have justified
his inclusion in the Suffolk commission.
>
> >
> > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
> clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
holdings
> in suffolk.
> >
> > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled
to
> the designation. but, given the political climate early in
richard's
> reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
>
> Or Buckingham may not have been bothered since he was busy with
> matters of his own. If we had the records from those commissions it
> would be possible to find out, but looking at the TNA catalogue I
> can't see anything surviving in the KB9 series for Richard's reign
> earlier than the Easter term of 1484.
> >
> > it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned
for,
> just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue
creature.
> now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
> tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
>
> I didn't know about that pardon, but then I haven't researched
Alcock
> as such. He had been president of Edward V's council as Prince of
> Wales, so is likely to have been sympathetic to attempts to restore
> him to the throne. Though remaining on Richard's council as King
> throuhout his reign, he was also trusted by Tudor when he became
> King - he was appointed as a stop-gap Chancellor until after
Morton's
> return to England, and in that capacity opened Henry's first
> parliament. The wikipeadia write-up on him says he was one of those
> ho pressed Henry in parliament to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth, but I don't know what the evidence is. Apart from the
> Parliament Rolls, which I haven't checked but which essentially
only
> give the text of the opening speech and the Acts passed, the main
> source for Henry's first parliamentary session is a report compiled
> by the Colchester MPs. This relates that the Speaker, Sir Thomas
> Lovell, presented a petition to henry from the Commons that he
should
> get on and marry Elizabeth, and this is immediately followed by the
> description of Alcock proroguing the parliament. In January,
however,
> Alcock was a witness for both Henry and Elizabeth when they
appointed
> their proctors to approach the papal legate for the marriage
> dispensation.
> My main question, however, is whether Alcock was available to meet
> Margaret Beaufort in Worcester. Even if he were with Richard on the
> progress, there is just one possible date - on Tuesday 5 August,
the
> king was in Worcester, staying in the priory attached to the
> cathedral. This was just three days after he had been in Gloucester
> (where the Tudor writers would have us believe he quarrelled with
> Buckingham). Does Holinshed give any idea when this meeting is
> supposed to have occurred? Personally, I can't see Alcock having
been
> interested in Margaret's beloved son until the rumour had got round
> that Edward V was dead. In early August dissidents were still
focused
> on restoring Edward V, and if Margaret Beaufort had other plans
> Alcock is not the person she would have approached with them.
>
> On the other hand, just how popular was Alcock with Henry VII? He
> lost his chancellorship to Morton early in 1486, and I recently
> encountered a document dating to shortly before Henry's coronation
> which identified him as legally responsible for the 300-ft stretch
of
> roadway between Strand Cross and Charing Cross (where he had his
> mansion), which the coronation procession would need to pass down,
> and which was flooded and full of dangerous submerged potholes. He
> was ordered to get in repaired immediately.
>
> I take it Alcock's pardon was a "general pardon"? I get the
> impression these usually relate to political disloyalty. Do you
know
> if there were any others receiving pardons at around the same time?
> It suggests to me perhaps Alcock had been in touch with people
aiming
> to restore Edward V, but when he heard that the rebellion had been
> hijacked and the princes were supposed to be dead he decided to
have
> nothing more to do with it, or at least managed to persuade Richard
> that he was now clean. Kendall, however, suggests people often
> requested pardons as an insurance policy. It is possible that
Alcock
> just feared he might come under suspicion because of his past links
> with Edward V. Innocent people could be brought down by personal
> enemies in these sorts of circumstances.
>
> Roslyn, do you know the source(s) for these two pardons of
Tyrell's?
> I've not come across them in any primary source material yet though
I
> know Josephine Tey made a big issue of them in 'Daughter of Time'.
> I've always had a suspicion that it may be two different documents
> referring to the same pardon, but one of them got the month wrong.
> that sort of thing is all too common, and the medieval forms of
June
> and July were very similar. Wasn't one the same day as the Battle
of
> Stoke, and the other the same day the following month? (or were
they
> 1486?)? If they were 1487, it looks to me as if Tyrell received a
> pardon to cover any links he might have had with the Lincoln-Lovell
> rebels.
>

I've just got a reference to the pardons from an old Ricardian
article. They are 1486, and they are noted in Campbell's 'Materials
for the Reign of Henry VII', vol 1, pages nos. 301, 460 & 503. Does
anyone have access?

My guess is that there was really only a single pardon. If 1486, then
it might suggest that, despite his being over in Guisnes, Tyrell had
come under suspicion in regard to the recent rebellions. The main
rebellions were headed by Lovell and Stafford, of course, but the one
that might really have put Tyrell under suspicion was the slightly
premature rising by Christopher & Giles Wellesbourne. During
Buckingham's Rebellion Tyrell and Christopher Wellesbourne had been
together looking for Buckingham. When Tyrell was finally arrested
and sent to the Tower in 1501, a servant of his named Robert
Wellesbourne was arrested with him.

Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Stephen, thanks for that. I think there's also a list of
> Buckingam's forfeited estates in Harley 433.
>
> By the way, Stephen, I have email gremlins again so if others don't
> mind I'll use the forum to let you know I arrived home yesterday to
> find the document had arrived from the Borthwick with apologies for
> duff reference. It's not the best quality copy, but the best they
> could produce. I'll have a look at it as soon as I can.
>
> Marie
>
THE document we wanted and they couldn't find THREE times?

When you have examined it, if the e-mail is not back, try posting
here or under "Files". There is a long e-mail waiting for you.

Alternatively, if you can find my 'phone number anywhere, feel free
to use it. Incidentally, Anne G and I are now among three joint
moderators of Sceptred Isle.

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't
comment
> on
> > his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia.
i
> > picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
> > woodville brothers, aside from who they married.
> > >
> > > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the
stafford
> > clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
> holdings
> > in suffolk.
> > >
> > > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual
travelled
> to
> > the designation. but, given the political climate early in
> richard's
> > reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
> > >
> > > it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned
> for,
> > just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue
> creature.
> > now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out
why
> > tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > --- In , fayre
> rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > as much as i would like to go with the majority,
regarding "our
> > > ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence
> > reads
> > > thus:
> > > >
> > > > "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as
I
> > > shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie
> of
> > > Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
> > > >
> > > > the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
> > > after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
> > > direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
> > > buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
> > > descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot
> > bloodline)
> > > >
> > > > AUGUST 1483
> > > > 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> > > > 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> > > > 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
> > > >
> > > > it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet
> margaret
> > > in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on
his
> > way
> > > to or in suffolkshire.
> > >
> > > Hi again folks,
> > >
> > > Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two
> posts
> > > but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
> > > responding as I go.
> > > I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
> > > puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went
to
> > all
> > > these places. The very top people under the king got appointed
to
> a
> > > lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what
went
> > on -
> > > they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of
> them.
> > > Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know?
On
> > > balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought
> > Buckingham
> > > was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either
> side
> > of
> > > gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write
a
> > > letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on
> 18
> > > August?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
> > > about r3 and his era/reign.
> > > >
> > > > why then should we take for face value the story of
buckingham
> > > meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records
show
> a
> > > different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's
> chronicle?
> > >
> > > I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she
> went
> > to
> > > confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared
friendship
> > > with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that
Alcock
> > was
> > > with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right
through
> > the
> > > progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on
> the
> > > list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone
> would
> > > like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > There was a Stafford estate in NW Suffolk near Bury and it was
> > forfeited in 1521 when the 3rd Duke was attainted. It became a
> > conference centre but closed down a year or two before Mid-Anglia
> > Group could visit it. It started with H but I am struggling for
> the
> > exact name.
> >
>

comments intersperced, see below..

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't comment on
his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia. i
picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
woodville brothers, aside from who they married.

Hi roslyn,
I only asked because I had emailed you the information once. I've
checked - it was 22nd August. This suggests to me that either
Buckingham or his wife (Lionel's sister), or both, were at Thornbury
on that date.
=====
boy, it's been over a year since we exchanged info. my focus has been on other than buckingham's rebellion during the interlude.
======

>
> stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land holdings
in suffolk.
>
> i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled to
the designation. but, given the political climate early in richard's
reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.

Or Buckingham may not have been bothered since he was busy with
matters of his own. If we had the records from those commissions it
would be possible to find out, but looking at the TNA catalogue I
can't see anything surviving in the KB9 series for Richard's reign
earlier than the Easter term of 1484.
=====
yes, the tudor parchment shredders were busy, weren't they?
i sometimes find tidbits in the a2a archives. you have to get creative with spelling tho.
======
>
> it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned for,
just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue creature.
now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.

I didn't know about that pardon, but then I haven't researched Alcock
as such. He had been president of Edward V's council as Prince of
Wales, so is likely to have been sympathetic to attempts to restore
him to the throne. Though remaining on Richard's council as King
throuhout his reign, he was also trusted by Tudor when he became
King - he was appointed as a stop-gap Chancellor until after Morton's
return to England, and in that capacity opened Henry's first
parliament. The wikipeadia write-up on him says he was one of those
ho pressed Henry in parliament to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth, but I don't know what the evidence is. Apart from the
Parliament Rolls, which I haven't checked but which essentially only
give the text of the opening speech and the Acts passed, the main
source for Henry's first parliamentary session is a report compiled
by the Colchester MPs. This relates that the Speaker, Sir Thomas
Lovell, presented a petition to henry from the Commons that he should
get on and marry Elizabeth, and this is immediately followed by the
description of Alcock proroguing the parliament. In January, however,
Alcock was a witness for both Henry and Elizabeth when they appointed
their proctors to approach the papal legate for the marriage
dispensation.
My main question, however, is whether Alcock was available to meet
Margaret Beaufort in Worcester. Even if he were with Richard on the
progress, there is just one possible date - on Tuesday 5 August, the
king was in Worcester, staying in the priory attached to the
cathedral. This was just three days after he had been in Gloucester
(where the Tudor writers would have us believe he quarrelled with
Buckingham). Does Holinshed give any idea when this meeting is
supposed to have occurred?
====
see:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1976
read the second column on this page and continue to the first column on the next page
in short... buckingham says to morton, he was fed up with richard's unfulfilled promises, and rode off to brecknocke. he stopped for two days at tewkesburie, from there he rode..mulling over his lancasteran right to be king, when by chance or by god's will..he encountered lady margaret on the road to worcester/bridgnorth. it was her meeting that helped him see the light that h7 should be the king.
the manure is so well heaped the stinking aroma from this bouquet of tudorian grown propaganda still lingers to this day.
====
Personally, I can't see Alcock having been
interested in Margaret's beloved son until the rumour had got round
that Edward V was dead. In early August dissidents were still focused
on restoring Edward V, and if Margaret Beaufort had other plans
Alcock is not the person she would have approached with them.
====
or..was there some manipulation by both margaret and buckingham?
my personal theory is:
buckingham led a rebellion rallying the "troops" to put himself on the throne. alcock could have been duped into believing buckingham wanted to become lord protector..aka a place holder for e5.
margaret was definitely a background player. she may not have known buckingham had already done in the princes, according to the portuguese source..by starvation.
this could be the reason h7 actually failed to arrive in time to assist buckingham. i've been told the source of the spider king knowing the princes were dead by august 30th, may be alison weir.
holinshed says buckingham wrote h7 and jasper tudor. this makes more sense than bucky writing h7. jasper was the one with military experience.
i think h7's name just gets tossed in for dramatic effect. jasper was h6's half brother and had guardianship over h7 for many years. of course protocol says h7 was the senior title holder, but logic says you wouldn't ask for a pup when a trained wardog was at hand.
======
On the other hand, just how popular was Alcock with Henry VII? He
lost his chancellorship to Morton early in 1486, and I recently
encountered a document dating to shortly before Henry's coronation
which identified him as legally responsible for the 300-ft stretch of
roadway between Strand Cross and Charing Cross (where he had his
mansion), which the coronation procession would need to pass down,
and which was flooded and full of dangerous submerged potholes. He
was ordered to get in repaired immediately.
===
sounds like alcock was a puppet/placeholder to the tudors vs being of any real positioned power player. he may have caused his own downfall by pushing for the h7/e of y marriage.
=====

I take it Alcock's pardon was a "general pardon"?
===
i don't know. i just have a reference to it, citing the patent rolls as the source.
=====
I get the
impression these usually relate to political disloyalty. Do you know
if there were any others receiving pardons at around the same time?
===
not yet, it would be interesting to see who else may have been pardoned on the same or near the same date. it could certainly add some detail to the picture of the events in early october 83.
=====
It suggests to me perhaps Alcock had been in touch with people aiming
to restore Edward V, but when he heard that the rebellion had been
hijacked and the princes were supposed to be dead he decided to have
nothing more to do with it, or at least managed to persuade Richard
that he was now clean.
====
Kendall, however, suggests people often
requested pardons as an insurance policy.
====
i finally have a copy of kendall, i've yet to fully read. i picked it up in a used book store for about 3 brit pounds. i've just ordered caroline halstead's 2 vols of the history of r3, and one of gardianer's r3, including notes on perkin warbeck. they are supposed to arrive by month's end.
i'm currently reading desmond sewell's black legend...he's not doing a good job of supporting the tudor propaganda. talk about a rehash of the same old same old.
thus far, the only valuable info i'm gleaned from sewell, is that r3's mother cecily was very pious and interested in medieval mystics...and that dr. alison hanham is likely a good source of info.
=====
It is possible that Alcock
just feared he might come under suspicion because of his past links
with Edward V. Innocent people could be brought down by personal
enemies in these sorts of circumstances.
====
backstabbing and social climbing was definitely a sport in this era.
====

Roslyn, do you know the source(s) for these two pardons of Tyrell's?
====
my notes refer to a ricardian issue. no. 63. that issue may cite their source.
=====
I've not come across them in any primary source material yet though I
know Josephine Tey made a big issue of them in 'Daughter of Time'.
I've always had a suspicion that it may be two different documents
referring to the same pardon, but one of them got the month wrong.
that sort of thing is all too common, and the medieval forms of June
and July were very similar. Wasn't one the same day as the Battle of
Stoke, and the other the same day the following month? (or were they
1486?)?
====
the pardons were in 1486. i have a theory, that i've not really chased down as of yet.
at about the same time, tyrell recieved his pardon/s, a priest named dighton was rewarded with a church posting.
my theory postulates...is this when tyrell's confession occurred? was tyrrell's henchman, according to moore, really a priest.
did tyrrell and dighton confirm for h7 that the boys were really dead, and therefore the pardons and rewards.
is looking for tyrrell's confession in 1502 a red herring, and should we be looking for documents written circa 1486?
roslyn
=====
If they were 1487, it looks to me as if Tyrell received a
pardon to cover any links he might have had with the Lincoln-Lovell
rebels.

see wayyyyyyyy below...

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Thornbury
> on that date.

Just realised we may be at cross-purposes. I was actually wondering
whether Buckingham had estates in suffolk that might have justified
his inclusion in the Suffolk commission.
>
> >
> > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
> clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
holdings
> in suffolk.
> >
> > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled
to
> the designation. but, given the political climate early in
richard's
> reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
>
> Or Buckingham may not have been bothered since he was busy with
> matters of his own. If we had the records from those commissions it
> would be possible to find out, but looking at the TNA catalogue I
> can't see anything surviving in the KB9 series for Richard's reign
> earlier than the Easter term of 1484.
> >
> > it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned
for,
> just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue
creature.
> now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out why
> tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
>
> I didn't know about that pardon, but then I haven't researched
Alcock
> as such. He had been president of Edward V's council as Prince of
> Wales, so is likely to have been sympathetic to attempts to restore
> him to the throne. Though remaining on Richard's council as King
> throuhout his reign, he was also trusted by Tudor when he became
> King - he was appointed as a stop-gap Chancellor until after
Morton's
> return to England, and in that capacity opened Henry's first
> parliament. The wikipeadia write-up on him says he was one of those
> ho pressed Henry in parliament to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth, but I don't know what the evidence is. Apart from the
> Parliament Rolls, which I haven't checked but which essentially
only
> give the text of the opening speech and the Acts passed, the main
> source for Henry's first parliamentary session is a report compiled
> by the Colchester MPs. This relates that the Speaker, Sir Thomas
> Lovell, presented a petition to henry from the Commons that he
should
> get on and marry Elizabeth, and this is immediately followed by the
> description of Alcock proroguing the parliament. In January,
however,
> Alcock was a witness for both Henry and Elizabeth when they
appointed
> their proctors to approach the papal legate for the marriage
> dispensation.
> My main question, however, is whether Alcock was available to meet
> Margaret Beaufort in Worcester. Even if he were with Richard on the
> progress, there is just one possible date - on Tuesday 5 August,
the
> king was in Worcester, staying in the priory attached to the
> cathedral. This was just three days after he had been in Gloucester
> (where the Tudor writers would have us believe he quarrelled with
> Buckingham). Does Holinshed give any idea when this meeting is
> supposed to have occurred? Personally, I can't see Alcock having
been
> interested in Margaret's beloved son until the rumour had got round
> that Edward V was dead. In early August dissidents were still
focused
> on restoring Edward V, and if Margaret Beaufort had other plans
> Alcock is not the person she would have approached with them.
>
> On the other hand, just how popular was Alcock with Henry VII? He
> lost his chancellorship to Morton early in 1486, and I recently
> encountered a document dating to shortly before Henry's coronation
> which identified him as legally responsible for the 300-ft stretch
of
> roadway between Strand Cross and Charing Cross (where he had his
> mansion), which the coronation procession would need to pass down,
> and which was flooded and full of dangerous submerged potholes. He
> was ordered to get in repaired immediately.
>
> I take it Alcock's pardon was a "general pardon"? I get the
> impression these usually relate to political disloyalty. Do you
know
> if there were any others receiving pardons at around the same time?
> It suggests to me perhaps Alcock had been in touch with people
aiming
> to restore Edward V, but when he heard that the rebellion had been
> hijacked and the princes were supposed to be dead he decided to
have
> nothing more to do with it, or at least managed to persuade Richard
> that he was now clean. Kendall, however, suggests people often
> requested pardons as an insurance policy. It is possible that
Alcock
> just feared he might come under suspicion because of his past links
> with Edward V. Innocent people could be brought down by personal
> enemies in these sorts of circumstances.
>
> Roslyn, do you know the source(s) for these two pardons of
Tyrell's?
> I've not come across them in any primary source material yet though
I
> know Josephine Tey made a big issue of them in 'Daughter of Time'.
> I've always had a suspicion that it may be two different documents
> referring to the same pardon, but one of them got the month wrong.
> that sort of thing is all too common, and the medieval forms of
June
> and July were very similar. Wasn't one the same day as the Battle
of
> Stoke, and the other the same day the following month? (or were
they
> 1486?)? If they were 1487, it looks to me as if Tyrell received a
> pardon to cover any links he might have had with the Lincoln-Lovell
> rebels.
>

I've just got a reference to the pardons from an old Ricardian
article. They are 1486, and they are noted in Campbell's 'Materials
for the Reign of Henry VII', vol 1, pages nos. 301, 460 & 503. Does
anyone have access?

My guess is that there was really only a single pardon. If 1486, then
it might suggest that, despite his being over in Guisnes, Tyrell had
come under suspicion in regard to the recent rebellions. The main
rebellions were headed by Lovell and Stafford, of course, but the one
that might really have put Tyrell under suspicion was the slightly
premature rising by Christopher & Giles Wellesbourne. During
Buckingham's Rebellion Tyrell and Christopher Wellesbourne had been
together looking for Buckingham. When Tyrell was finally arrested
and sent to the Tower in 1501, a servant of his named Robert
Wellesbourne was arrested with him.

Marie
got a spare 100 brit pounds? i've only got lint in my pockets at the moment.
first edition, 2 vols..
CAMPBELL, Rev William
Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII from Original Records Preserved in the Public Records Office London Longmans Green 1873 First Edition Thus Quarter Calf 8vo With 2 vols and over 1000pp - titleprinted in red and black - in the prestigious ' Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain Series' - slightly foxed o/w very good Very Good

GBP 100.00 > other currencies
ordernr.: ELM/2

bookseller: K Books Ltd ABA (GREAT BRITAIN)
E-mail they are based in yorkshire

http://www.ilab.org/db/detail.php?booknr=21775750&source=bookfinder

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Stephen, thanks for that. I think there's also a list of
> Buckingam's forfeited estates in Harley 433.
>
> By the way, Stephen, I have email gremlins again so if others don't
> mind I'll use the forum to let you know I arrived home yesterday to
> find the document had arrived from the Borthwick with apologies for
> duff reference. It's not the best quality copy, but the best they
> could produce. I'll have a look at it as soon as I can.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i haven't researched lionel woodvile. therefore, i can't
comment
> on
> > his whereabouts. anthony woodville had some land in east anglia.
i
> > picked this info up in passing. i've not really looked at the
> > woodville brothers, aside from who they married.
> > >
> > > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the
stafford
> > clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
> holdings
> > in suffolk.
> > >
> > > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual
travelled
> to
> > the designation. but, given the political climate early in
> richard's
> > reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
> > >
> > > it would be interesting to find out what alcock was pardoned
> for,
> > just a day before r3's letter labelling buckingham..untrue
> creature.
> > now, wouldn't that be a trick, since no one has even found out
why
> > tudor pardoned tyrrell twice a month a part.
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > --- In , fayre
> rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > as much as i would like to go with the majority,
regarding "our
> > > ladie worcester", i am left puzzling why the holinshed sentence
> > reads
> > > thus:
> > > >
> > > > "Now when we had communed a little concernning hir sonne, as
I
> > > shall shew you after, and therefore departed, shee to our ladie
> of
> > > Worcester, and I to Shrewsburie..."
> > > >
> > > > the calender of patent rolls, state buckingham went to Suffok
> > > after his meeting with margaret. Shrewsbury is in the opposite
> > > direction. ( a little mislead or true error. what business did
> > > buckingham have in shrewsbury? or was he off to see the
> > > descendents/heirs of the earl of shrewsbury..aka the talbot
> > bloodline)
> > > >
> > > > AUGUST 1483
> > > > 11 commission of the peace for Worcestershire.
> > > > 18 commission of the peace for Suffolk.
> > > > 26 commission of the peace for Somerset.
> > > >
> > > > it would appear buckingham did have opportunity to meet
> margaret
> > > in worcester on or about aug 11th. but by aug 18th, he was on
his
> > way
> > > to or in suffolkshire.
> > >
> > > Hi again folks,
> > >
> > > Sorry I've been reiterating the reiterated in my previous two
> posts
> > > but I'm catching up on a month's worth of posts and am just
> > > responding as I go.
> > > I've also noticed these commissions, Roslyn, and I find them
> > > puzzling, but they are not actually proof that Buckingham went
to
> > all
> > > these places. The very top people under the king got appointed
to
> a
> > > lot of commissions just so they could generally oversee what
went
> > on -
> > > they wouldn't have been expected to physically sit on all of
> them.
> > > Did Buckingham have estates in Suffolk, perhaps? Anyone know?
On
> > > balance, they suggest to me that richard probably thought
> > Buckingham
> > > was in Gloucestershire(Somerset and Worcestershire lie either
> side
> > of
> > > gloucestershire). Roslyn, didn't Bishop Lionel Woodville write
a
> > > letter from Buckingham's Gloucestershire castle of Thornbury on
> 18
> > > August?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > we know there have been embellishments and outright lies told
> > > about r3 and his era/reign.
> > > >
> > > > why then should we take for face value the story of
buckingham
> > > meeting margaret in worcester...especially when the records
show
> a
> > > different destination for buckingham than in holinshed's
> chronicle?
> > >
> > > I totally agree. Holinshed would seem to be implying that she
> went
> > to
> > > confer with Bishop Alcock (the link being their shared
friendship
> > > with Reyonld Bray). But I notice that Wikipaedia says that
Alcock
> > was
> > > with Richard in York, so I imagine he was with him right
through
> > the
> > > progress (he was on Richard's council). I can check if he is on
> the
> > > list of folks who were with him at Oxford, though, if anyone
> would
> > > like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > There was a Stafford estate in NW Suffolk near Bury and it was
> > forfeited in 1521 when the 3rd Duke was attainted. It became a
> > conference centre but closed down a year or two before Mid-Anglia
> > Group could visit it. It started with H but I am struggling for
> the
> > exact name.
> >
>
HENGRAVE Hall.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments intersperced, see below..
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> =====
> boy, it's been over a year since we exchanged info. my focus has
been on other than buckingham's rebellion during the interlude.

I remembered this because it seemed highly significant to me. Bishop
Lionel had originally been in Sanctuary with the Queen, but had
slipped out. This would not have been an innocent tea party with bruv-
in-law. It looks like good evidence for something, but depending on
whether Buckingham himself was at Thornbury, or only his wife, it
could mean one of two things:-
1) Katherine Woodville was defying her husband and offering comfort -
and perhaps more - to members of her family who were resisting
Richard's rule.
2) Buckingham himself was already conspiring against Richard, but
with the Woodvilles rather than Margaret Beaufort or her son.


> ======
>
> >
> > stephen lark has done a fair amount of research on the stafford
> clan. he may be able to advise with regard to stafford land
holdings
> in suffolk.
> >
> > i know commissions didn't always mean the individual travelled to
> the designation. but, given the political climate early in
richard's
> reign, buckingham may have made trips to his appointments.
>
> Or Buckingham may not have been bothered since he was busy with
> matters of his own. If we had the records from those commissions it
> would be possible to find out, but looking at the TNA catalogue I
> can't see anything surviving in the KB9 series for Richard's reign
> earlier than the Easter term of 1484.
> =====
> yes, the tudor parchment shredders were busy, weren't they?
> i sometimes find tidbits in the a2a archives. you have to get
creative with spelling tho.

There's certainly a huge amount more surviving in the way of oyer and
terminer records for the equivalent two years of Henry VII's reign.

> king was in Worcester, staying in the priory attached to the
> cathedral. This was just three days after he had been in Gloucester
> (where the Tudor writers would have us believe he quarrelled with
> Buckingham). Does Holinshed give any idea when this meeting is
> supposed to have occurred?
> ====
> see:
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?
TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1976
> read the second column on this page and continue to the first
column on the next page
> in short... buckingham says to morton, he was fed up with
richard's unfulfilled promises, and rode off to brecknocke. he
stopped for two days at tewkesburie, from there he rode..mulling over
his lancasteran right to be king, when by chance or by god's will..he
encountered lady margaret on the road to worcester/bridgnorth. it was
her meeting that helped him see the light that h7 should be the king.
> the manure is so well heaped the stinking aroma from this bouquet
of tudorian grown propaganda still lingers to this day.

OK. Tewkesbury is north of Gloucester, Worcester north of Tewkesbury,
Bridgnorth north of Worcester and Shrewsbury NW of Bridgnorth.
Am I right, that Holinshed is telling us Buckingham and Richard
parted at Gloucester, then Buckingham went from Gloucester to Brecon
via Tewkesbury, Worcester, Bridgnorth and Shrewbury? This would be a
very weird way for Buckingham to get from Gloucester to Brecon, which
is almost due west of Gloucester!
In real life he would probably have struck out west from Gloucester,
through Ross-on-Wye, then veering NW up to Hereford, then SW down to
Brecon passing through Hay-on-Wye. Holinshed would appear to have
been labouring under the misapprehension that Brecon is due west of
Shrewsbury rather than Gloucester!
The other problem with Holinshed's itinerary is that it would not
have involved Buckingham parting with Richard at Gloucester, since
Richard also went on from there to Tewkesbury (where he appears to
have stayed 2 days) and then Worcester. (After that, Richard struck
out ENE for Warwick.)
Holinshed is trying to set up a meeting with Margaret Beaufort, who
lived in the NW - Cheshire, Lancashire and NE Wales. He is sending
her down the road that followed the English side of the Severn, ie
down the England-Wales border, throguh Bridgnorth, on a supposed
pilgrimage to Our Lady of Worcester, and he thinks he can have her
meet Buckingham on that road on his way to Brecon. I know he didn't
have access to a good Ordnance Survey map, but that is ridiculous.
Funnily enough, Buckingham did ride northwards up the Severn Valley
after the collapse of his rebellion, and got as far as Wem, some
miles north of Shrewsbury. I do think it possible that he was seeking
sanctuary with Margaret Beaufort then, but that is another matter
altogether. It's worth bearing in mind that Margaret's previous
husband had been Buckingham's uncle, and that he visited the couple
often when he was a child.
In short, it looks as though a pre-rebellion meeting between
Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort would not have been logistically
possible.

The other problem with Holinshed's scenario is that it gives
Richard's murder of the Princes as a motive for Buckingham's
defection, yet he supposedly left Richard well before either More or
Vergil's date for the murder (More says Richard sent the order from
Warwick, vergil from York). I can see why Holinshed avoids dates and
why earlier Tudor writers had post-dated Buckingham's Rebellion to
1484.

And of course there's still the problem that Oxford University's list
of the great & the good who were with the King on his visit there -
even before he got to Gloucester - does not include Buckingham's name.


> ====
> Personally, I can't see Alcock having been
> interested in Margaret's beloved son until the rumour had got round
> that Edward V was dead. In early August dissidents were still
focused
> on restoring Edward V, and if Margaret Beaufort had other plans
> Alcock is not the person she would have approached with them.
> ====
> or..was there some manipulation by both margaret and buckingham?
> my personal theory is:
> buckingham led a rebellion rallying the "troops" to put himself
on the throne. alcock could have been duped into believing buckingham
wanted to become lord protector..aka a place holder for e5.

Crowland, however, suggests that Buckingham only announced himself as
a rebel leader when word got out that the Princes had been murdered.
He is suggesting that the rebellion as originally planned, to
reinstate Edward V, had not been masterminded by Buckingham at all. I
would suggest that it had followed on naturally from the failure of
the attempt of late July to spring them from the Tower.

> margaret was definitely a background player. she may not have
known buckingham had already done in the princes, according to the
portuguese source..by starvation.
> this could be the reason h7 actually failed to arrive in time to
assist buckingham.

Did you know that items in the Breton archives suggest that
Buckingham was still at the docks in Brittany waiting for funding
about two weeks after the Tudor writers have him setting out? The
weeks he is supposed to have spent storm-tossed are probably a cover
for the fact that he was, as you say, peripheral to the rebellion.

Michael Hicks plausibly suggested at a talk I went to once that the
main reason for the failure of the rebellion is that once it was
announced that the Princes were dead the rebels were not agreed as to
who to support next.


i've been told the source of the spider king knowing the princes were
dead by august 30th, may be alison weir.
Okay, just checkd my Weir (which I hasten to add I bought cheap), and
this comes from Commines. He says Louis XI believed Richard was
responsible for the Princes' deaths and would have nothing to do with
him. Louis, of course, died on 30 August 1483.
Louis had in fact written a very offhand note to Richard on 20 July
congratulating him on his accession and asking for his friendship.
Richard received this c.16 August, and replied rather tongue-in-cheek
on the 18th. Almost certainly Louis had died before Richard's letter
reached him. I think Commines is doing a retrospective here as no one
in England apparently suspected the Princes were dead as early as
August and Louis' information on events across the Channel would have
been about 3 weeks behindhand. It is the French version of the
Tudornrewrite of history. Look - our great Louis would have nothing
to do with this monster and would have heartily approved of Anne de
Beaujeu's funding of the Tudor invasion.


> holinshed says buckingham wrote h7 and jasper tudor. this makes
more sense than bucky writing h7. jasper was the one with military
experience.
> i think h7's name just gets tossed in for dramatic effect. jasper
was h6's half brother and had guardianship over h7 for many years. of
course protocol says h7 was the senior title holder, but logic says
you wouldn't ask for a pup when a trained wardog was at hand.

Buckingham would have wanted funding from Brittany, and Jasper's
experience for his own purposes. Margaret would have wanted funding
from Brittany to put her son on the throne. I believe it was Henry to
whom Duke Francis finally gave the loan of ships and money (on 31
October, after the rebellion was already over). what I can't see is
how Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort were managing their joint
involvement when they probably had competing ambitions.

> ======
> On the other hand, just how popular was Alcock with Henry VII? He
> lost his chancellorship to Morton early in 1486, and I recently
> encountered a document dating to shortly before Henry's coronation
> which identified him as legally responsible for the 300-ft stretch
of
> roadway between Strand Cross and Charing Cross (where he had his
> mansion), which the coronation procession would need to pass down,
> and which was flooded and full of dangerous submerged potholes. He
> was ordered to get in repaired immediately.
> ===
> sounds like alcock was a puppet/placeholder to the tudors vs
being of any real positioned power player. he may have caused his own
downfall by pushing for the h7/e of y marriage.

If he did push it. Like I said, the Colchester account juxtaposes
Alcock's closure of parliament after the demand for the marriage by
the Commons led by their Speaker Sir Thomas Lovell, but that is far
from suggesting that Alcock was pushing for the marriage - rather the
opposite. Like I say, I'd like to know where Wikipedia got this from.
Sir Thomas Lovell remained in high favour, by the way. I see Alcock
as a gifted man, but a man not inclined to take political risks.
Probably Henry was not impressed with his lack of willingness to
stick his neck out during Richard's reign. In the light of his
working obediently under Richard, by the by, it is worth bearing in
mind that this man had been Stillington's "pupil" and Crowland says
when Stillington was Chancellor in the early 1470s he did nothing
without Alock's approval.
> =====
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> > http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?
> TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1976
> > read the second column on this page and continue to the first
> column on the next page
> > in short... buckingham says to morton, he was fed up with
> richard's unfulfilled promises, and rode off to brecknocke. he
> stopped for two days at tewkesburie, from there he rode..mulling
over
> his lancasteran right to be king, when by chance or by god's
will..he
> encountered lady margaret on the road to worcester/bridgnorth. it
was
> her meeting that helped him see the light that h7 should be the
king.
> > the manure is so well heaped the stinking aroma from this
bouquet
> of tudorian grown propaganda still lingers to this day.
>
> OK. Tewkesbury is north of Gloucester, Worcester north of
Tewkesbury,
> Bridgnorth north of Worcester and Shrewsbury NW of Bridgnorth.
> Am I right, that Holinshed is telling us Buckingham and Richard
> parted at Gloucester, then Buckingham went from Gloucester to
Brecon
> via Tewkesbury, Worcester, Bridgnorth and Shrewbury? This would be
a
> very weird way for Buckingham to get from Gloucester to Brecon,
which
> is almost due west of Gloucester!
> In real life he would probably have struck out west from
Gloucester,
> through Ross-on-Wye, then veering NW up to Hereford, then SW down
to
> Brecon passing through Hay-on-Wye. Holinshed would appear to have
> been labouring under the misapprehension that Brecon is due west of
> Shrewsbury rather than Gloucester!
> The other problem with Holinshed's itinerary is that it would not
> have involved Buckingham parting with Richard at Gloucester, since
> Richard also went on from there to Tewkesbury (where he appears to
> have stayed 2 days) and then Worcester. (After that, Richard struck
> out ENE for Warwick.)
> Holinshed is trying to set up a meeting with Margaret Beaufort, who
> lived in the NW - Cheshire, Lancashire and NE Wales. He is sending
> her down the road that followed the English side of the Severn, ie
> down the England-Wales border, throguh Bridgnorth, on a supposed
> pilgrimage to Our Lady of Worcester, and he thinks he can have her
> meet Buckingham on that road on his way to Brecon. I know he didn't
> have access to a good Ordnance Survey map, but that is ridiculous.
> Funnily enough, Buckingham did ride northwards up the Severn Valley
> after the collapse of his rebellion, and got as far as Wem, some
> miles north of Shrewsbury. I do think it possible that he was
seeking
> sanctuary with Margaret Beaufort then, but that is another matter
> altogether. It's worth bearing in mind that Margaret's previous
> husband had been Buckingham's uncle, and that he visited the couple
> often when he was a child.
> In short, it looks as though a pre-rebellion meeting between
> Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort would not have been logistically
> possible.

Okay, I should qualify this. It would not have been logistically
possible if Buckingham had made straight for Brecon after he parted
from the royal progress at Gloucester, and stayed there being swee-
talked by Morton, as the tudor writers all suggest.
As I hinted before, the Somerset and Worcester commissions, plus the
letter written by Lionel Woodville from Buckingham's Gloucester
castle of Thornbury, suggest to me that Buckingham remained in
Gloucestershire during August, based at Thornbury. IF he actually sat
on the Worcester commission of the peace (appointed on 11 August),
and IF Margaret Beaufort really made a pilgrimage to Our Lady of
Worcester during August, then just possibly they may have met in
Worcester (but not on the road from there to Bridgnorth!). But I
still doubt it. I don't know whether Holinshed entirely made this up
or whether it had originated in later claims made by Margaret
Beaufort, but it seems to me this lady was something of a fantasist,
albeit a highly intelligent one.
If Buckingham was at Thonrbury throughout August and conspiring there
with Woodvilles, and did not move out to Brecon, where Morton was
held, until later, then the idea that Buckingham's defection from
Richard was Morton's doing looks like more Tudor fantasy.

To whom it may concern, by the way, my email is back.

Marie

The only comment I would make is that if Margaret Beaufort had been with Stanley in Oxford, and wished then to go to Lancashire/Cheshire, then going via Worcester (and fitting in a quick pilgrimage en route) would be perfectly sensible (though the more direct way would involve Banbury and Warwick).

Oxford - Bridgnorth - Worcester, however, involves a distinct dog leg, and unless Margaret Beaufort had business there, it would not be logical at all.

Ann