Message for Bill and Roslyn

If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up to
proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade, Comte
de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New France).

this book preview may provide you some leads for your necessary verification.
frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit vs french.
there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper and lower canada..
http://books.google.com/books?id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy&source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up to
proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade, Comte
de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New France).

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> this book preview may provide you some leads for your necessary
verification.
> frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit
vs french.
> there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper
and lower canada..
> http://books.google.com/books?
id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy
&source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter
come up to
> proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade,
Comte
> de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New France).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thankyou - it could be useful.

Best known is probably the Chateau Frontenac, the large Gothic-style hotel in Quebec which was the venue for the Quebec Conference of 1943.

Ann

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
this book preview may provide you some leads for your necessary verification.
frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit vs french.
there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper and lower canada..
http://books.google.com/books?id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy&source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up to
proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade, Comte
de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New France).

This might help clear up the issue:

Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics
and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh History
Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.

"The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the lordship of
Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship of
Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's rebellion
in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and Yale
formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at over
£700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which was
extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of the
exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)

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

Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@... alanth252
Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
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

Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It seems
that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
or Bridgnorth.

Alan

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

--- In , "yorkistjoe"
<joe.schweninger@...> wrote:
>
> This might help clear up the issue:
>
> Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics
> and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh History
> Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
>
> "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the lordship
of
> Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship of
> Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's rebellion
> in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and Yale
> formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at over
> £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which was
> extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of the
> exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
>
> --------------------------
>
> Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@... alanth252
> Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> 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
>

you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited before you make any solid conclusions.

1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy and Walter Hopton.

bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one of them.

the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they were on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with the stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in converting them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on november 12, 1483.

roslyn



alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It seems
that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
or Bridgnorth.

Alan

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

--- In , "yorkistjoe"
<joe.schweninger@...> wrote:
>
> This might help clear up the issue:
>
> Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics
> and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh History
> Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
>
> "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the lordship
of
> Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship of
> Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's rebellion
> in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and Yale
> formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at over
> £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which was
> extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of the
> exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
>
> --------------------------
>
> Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@... alanth252
> Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> 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
>

Roslyn, you may wish to read my post again. The
"clear up" was about which castle Stanley had
tenure of. I haven`t made any conclusions. Not
unless in your vocabulary "it seems that" means
conclusively. License to enter lands does not
mean resident of. You`ll also note that I haven`t
ruled out Hopton being "our ladie", just that it
now seems more unlikely. Worcester may not have been
the Lady Margaret`s destination.

Alan

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

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited before
you make any solid conclusions.
>
> 1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to
enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy and
Walter Hopton.
>
> bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one of
them.
>
> the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they were
on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with the
stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in converting
them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on
november 12, 1483.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It
seems
> that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
> Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
> Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
> certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
> Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
> or Bridgnorth.
>
> Alan
>
> ==============
>
> --- In , "yorkistjoe"
> <joe.schweninger@> wrote:
> >
> > This might help clear up the issue:
> >
> > Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics
> > and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh
History
> > Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
> >
> > "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the lordship
> of
> > Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> > period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> > exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship of
> > Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's
rebellion
> > in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and
Yale
> > formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at
over
> > £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which was
> > extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of the
> > exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
> >
> > --------------------------
> >
> > Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@ alanth252
> > Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

alan..in this era you can not take anything as solidly conclusive. your comment regarding ...the madonna has my vote for our ladie started a poll like response.

majority opinion is not evidence...it is simply support for a theory postulated.

today i found john alcock, bishop of worcester was on a commission of peace in warwickshire on aug 9. buckingham was on commissions of peace for warwickshire and leicester aug 9.

on aug 11, alcock was on commissions of peace for worcester and gloucestershire. aug 11 buckingham was on a com. of peace for worcester.

therefore it is possible alcock, buckingham and m. beaufort were all together in one area...however, if margaret was trying to turn alcock against richard, she failed because on oct 11th. alcock was pardoned according to the patent rolls.

this was before buckingham was captured and the day before richard wrote to john russell stating:
Here, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the Duke of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom with God's grace we shall not be long till that we will be in those parts, and subdue his malice. We assure you there was never false traitor better purveyed for, as this bearer, Gloucester, shall show you.

AND license to enter lands does not mean resident of is very true..but it does not rule out the possibility of being in residence of any of the said lands elizabeth inherited.

ergo determining if lady worcester held any lands in worcester is worth a look, if only to rule her out.
roslyn
alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
Roslyn, you may wish to read my post again. The
"clear up" was about which castle Stanley had
tenure of. I haven`t made any conclusions. Not
unless in your vocabulary "it seems that" means
conclusively. License to enter lands does not
mean resident of. You`ll also note that I haven`t
ruled out Hopton being "our ladie", just that it
now seems more unlikely. Worcester may not have been
the Lady Margaret`s destination.

Alan

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

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited before
you make any solid conclusions.
>
> 1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to
enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy and
Walter Hopton.
>
> bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one of
them.
>
> the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they were
on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with the
stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in converting
them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on
november 12, 1483.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It
seems
> that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
> Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
> Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
> certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
> Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
> or Bridgnorth.
>
> Alan
>
> ==============
>
> --- In , "yorkistjoe"
> <joe.schweninger@> wrote:
> >
> > This might help clear up the issue:
> >
> > Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics
> > and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh
History
> > Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
> >
> > "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the lordship
> of
> > Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> > period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> > exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship of
> > Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's
rebellion
> > in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and
Yale
> > formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at
over
> > £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which was
> > extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of the
> > exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
> >
> > --------------------------
> >
> > Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@ alanth252
> > Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I`m sure other Brits will back me up on this, that the
term "has my vote" is a common phrase in the UK for
"that`s my opinion". Nothing to do with polls, responses,
majority evidence, or anything else.

Alan

=========


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> alan..in this era you can not take anything as solidly conclusive.
your comment regarding ...the madonna has my vote for our ladie
started a poll like response.
>
> majority opinion is not evidence...it is simply support for a
theory postulated.
>
> today i found john alcock, bishop of worcester was on a
commission of peace in warwickshire on aug 9. buckingham was on
commissions of peace for warwickshire and leicester aug 9.
>
> on aug 11, alcock was on commissions of peace for worcester and
gloucestershire. aug 11 buckingham was on a com. of peace for
worcester.
>
> therefore it is possible alcock, buckingham and m. beaufort were
all together in one area...however, if margaret was trying to turn
alcock against richard, she failed because on oct 11th. alcock was
pardoned according to the patent rolls.
>
> this was before buckingham was captured and the day before
richard wrote to john russell stating:
> Here, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for
to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the Duke
of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom with God's grace
we shall not be long till that we will be in those parts, and subdue
his malice. We assure you there was never false traitor better
purveyed for, as this bearer, Gloucester, shall show you.
>
> AND license to enter lands does not mean resident of is very
true..but it does not rule out the possibility of being in residence
of any of the said lands elizabeth inherited.
>
> ergo determining if lady worcester held any lands in worcester is
worth a look, if only to rule her out.
> roslyn
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> Roslyn, you may wish to read my post again. The
> "clear up" was about which castle Stanley had
> tenure of. I haven`t made any conclusions. Not
> unless in your vocabulary "it seems that" means
> conclusively. License to enter lands does not
> mean resident of. You`ll also note that I haven`t
> ruled out Hopton being "our ladie", just that it
> now seems more unlikely. Worcester may not have been
> the Lady Margaret`s destination.
>
> Alan
>
> ============
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited
before
> you make any solid conclusions.
> >
> > 1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to
> enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy
and
> Walter Hopton.
> >
> > bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one of
> them.
> >
> > the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they were
> on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with
the
> stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in
converting
> them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on
> november 12, 1483.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> > alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It
> seems
> > that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
> > Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
> > Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
> > certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
> > Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
> > or Bridgnorth.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ==============
> >
> > --- In , "yorkistjoe"
> > <joe.schweninger@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This might help clear up the issue:
> > >
> > > Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt:
Politics
> > > and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh
> History
> > > Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
> > >
> > > "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the
lordship
> > of
> > > Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> > > period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> > > exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship
of
> > > Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's
> rebellion
> > > in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and
> Yale
> > > formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at
> over
> > > £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which
was
> > > extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of
the
> > > exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@ alanth252
> > > Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

alan...you took an off list discussion regarding "our ladie of worcester" public.
it started with..my question..i wonder who my ladie of worcester is..give me surnames..i hate all these titles..

i then went and found who our ladie of worcester might be for myself.

you posted a query regarding..our lady..others supplied answers.

then you posted information i supplied you without attributation or consideration it took me more than 3 days to track down and verify the information about elizabeth hopton..and now you want to further roll in the mud publically with regards to a phrase that is also common in north america...well you're not getting my vote.

i'm just not into this game...i like intelligent debate, not the petty bickering of .."i win".

to repeat..to clarify....your comment..has my vote..****started a poll -like response and the acceptance of our "ladie of worcester" must be the madonna.

i have shown that it is possible that our ladie of worcester could still possibly be elizabeth hopton...and bishop of worcester probably is not in the running as who margaret went to visit...and who knows..maybe she did go visit a statue.

i'm trying to get to the truth..the verification, the most plausible possibility. majority opinion is not always the right answer.

since june, even before your acceptance as a member of this forum and first public post you contacted me..to discuss josephine tey. i had not read her, i have now (thank you for the url)..and since then.... i have been directing you to and supplying you with sources and information that took me years to find...and yes you have supplied me with info..most of it i already had...but, quite frankly i'm getting very, very fed up with..your need to build alliances to support your opinions.

we all have our opinions. some of us don't need to rally people to support them. we research and verify them ourselves...they are hard earned and informed opinions.

have a nice day...and thank you for sharing the information on the stonor letters, a source i directed you to, and i don't have the same ease of acquiring.

much luck with yours and the others research.

i'm being distracted from my research with this once private conversation..btw..netiquette is you don't take public what is posted privately.

my apologies to the members for this rant..i'm just truely fed up...and when the debate decays to..the brits will back me up..geez...beyond words..

roslyn..shaking her head and walking away from this thread.

alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
I`m sure other Brits will back me up on this, that the
term "has my vote" is a common phrase in the UK for
"that`s my opinion". Nothing to do with polls, responses,
majority evidence, or anything else.

Alan

=========

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> alan..in this era you can not take anything as solidly conclusive.
your comment regarding ...the madonna has my vote for our ladie
started a poll like response.
>
> majority opinion is not evidence...it is simply support for a
theory postulated.
>
> today i found john alcock, bishop of worcester was on a
commission of peace in warwickshire on aug 9. buckingham was on
commissions of peace for warwickshire and leicester aug 9.
>
> on aug 11, alcock was on commissions of peace for worcester and
gloucestershire. aug 11 buckingham was on a com. of peace for
worcester.
>
> therefore it is possible alcock, buckingham and m. beaufort were
all together in one area...however, if margaret was trying to turn
alcock against richard, she failed because on oct 11th. alcock was
pardoned according to the patent rolls.
>
> this was before buckingham was captured and the day before
richard wrote to john russell stating:
> Here, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for
to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the Duke
of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom with God's grace
we shall not be long till that we will be in those parts, and subdue
his malice. We assure you there was never false traitor better
purveyed for, as this bearer, Gloucester, shall show you.
>
> AND license to enter lands does not mean resident of is very
true..but it does not rule out the possibility of being in residence
of any of the said lands elizabeth inherited.
>
> ergo determining if lady worcester held any lands in worcester is
worth a look, if only to rule her out.
> roslyn
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> Roslyn, you may wish to read my post again. The
> "clear up" was about which castle Stanley had
> tenure of. I haven`t made any conclusions. Not
> unless in your vocabulary "it seems that" means
> conclusively. License to enter lands does not
> mean resident of. You`ll also note that I haven`t
> ruled out Hopton being "our ladie", just that it
> now seems more unlikely. Worcester may not have been
> the Lady Margaret`s destination.
>
> Alan
>
> ============
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited
before
> you make any solid conclusions.
> >
> > 1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to
> enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy
and
> Walter Hopton.
> >
> > bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one of
> them.
> >
> > the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they were
> on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with
the
> stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in
converting
> them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on
> november 12, 1483.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> > alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It
> seems
> > that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
> > Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
> > Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
> > certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
> > Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
> > or Bridgnorth.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ==============
> >
> > --- In , "yorkistjoe"
> > <joe.schweninger@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This might help clear up the issue:
> > >
> > > Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt:
Politics
> > > and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh
> History
> > > Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
> > >
> > > "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the
lordship
> > of
> > > Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the Yorkist
> > > period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by an
> > > exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship
of
> > > Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's
> rebellion
> > > in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and
> Yale
> > > formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at
> over
> > > £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which
was
> > > extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of
the
> > > exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@ alanth252
> > > Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I absolutely reject all Roslyn`s accusations of
incitement for opinions, distractions from her work,
lack of integrity, or anything else of like nature
she says I`m guilty of.

As far as "our ladie of Worcester" goes. I saw the
quote in Holinshed, mentioned it to her, and placed
a question on the board for suggestions in an attempt
to find out who she was.

I`m still not sure who she was, I have a leaning
towards her being the Madonna, but I`m certainly not
touting for support. The idea is ridiculous and
childish. Forgive me for thinking that asking for
opinions and advice, and having general discussions
and debate is what forums are for.

She certainly has given me helpful information, for
which I thank her, but I gave her information such
as I have in return. I haven`t once put any of our
private conversations on the public board, as now
she`s done, and I challenge her to prove her statement.

I`ve re-read all the recent posts. I don`t see any
sign of bickering except for now. Maybe someone else
can see what I can`t.

Alan

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

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> alan...you took an off list discussion regarding "our ladie of
worcester" public.
> it started with..my question..i wonder who my ladie of worcester
is..give me surnames..i hate all these titles..
>
> i then went and found who our ladie of worcester might be for
myself.
>
> you posted a query regarding..our lady..others supplied answers.
>
> then you posted information i supplied you without attributation
or consideration it took me more than 3 days to track down and verify
the information about elizabeth hopton..and now you want to further
roll in the mud publically with regards to a phrase that is also
common in north america...well you're not getting my vote.
>
> i'm just not into this game...i like intelligent debate, not the
petty bickering of .."i win".
>
> to repeat..to clarify....your comment..has my vote..****started a
poll -like response and the acceptance of our "ladie of worcester"
must be the madonna.
>
> i have shown that it is possible that our ladie of worcester
could still possibly be elizabeth hopton...and bishop of worcester
probably is not in the running as who margaret went to visit...and
who knows..maybe she did go visit a statue.
>
> i'm trying to get to the truth..the verification, the most
plausible possibility. majority opinion is not always the right
answer.
>
> since june, even before your acceptance as a member of this forum
and first public post you contacted me..to discuss josephine tey. i
had not read her, i have now (thank you for the url)..and since
then.... i have been directing you to and supplying you with sources
and information that took me years to find...and yes you have
supplied me with info..most of it i already had...but, quite frankly
i'm getting very, very fed up with..your need to build alliances to
support your opinions.
>
> we all have our opinions. some of us don't need to rally people
to support them. we research and verify them ourselves...they are
hard earned and informed opinions.
>
> have a nice day...and thank you for sharing the information on
the stonor letters, a source i directed you to, and i don't have the
same ease of acquiring.
>
> much luck with yours and the others research.
>
> i'm being distracted from my research with this once private
conversation..btw..netiquette is you don't take public what is posted
privately.
>
> my apologies to the members for this rant..i'm just truely fed
up...and when the debate decays to..the brits will back me
up..geez...beyond words..
>
> roslyn..shaking her head and walking away from this thread.
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> I`m sure other Brits will back me up on this, that the
> term "has my vote" is a common phrase in the UK for
> "that`s my opinion". Nothing to do with polls, responses,
> majority evidence, or anything else.
>
> Alan
>
> =========
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > alan..in this era you can not take anything as solidly
conclusive.
> your comment regarding ...the madonna has my vote for our ladie
> started a poll like response.
> >
> > majority opinion is not evidence...it is simply support for a
> theory postulated.
> >
> > today i found john alcock, bishop of worcester was on a
> commission of peace in warwickshire on aug 9. buckingham was on
> commissions of peace for warwickshire and leicester aug 9.
> >
> > on aug 11, alcock was on commissions of peace for worcester and
> gloucestershire. aug 11 buckingham was on a com. of peace for
> worcester.
> >
> > therefore it is possible alcock, buckingham and m. beaufort were
> all together in one area...however, if margaret was trying to turn
> alcock against richard, she failed because on oct 11th. alcock was
> pardoned according to the patent rolls.
> >
> > this was before buckingham was captured and the day before
> richard wrote to john russell stating:
> > Here, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for
> to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the
Duke
> of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom with God's
grace
> we shall not be long till that we will be in those parts, and
subdue
> his malice. We assure you there was never false traitor better
> purveyed for, as this bearer, Gloucester, shall show you.
> >
> > AND license to enter lands does not mean resident of is very
> true..but it does not rule out the possibility of being in
residence
> of any of the said lands elizabeth inherited.
> >
> > ergo determining if lady worcester held any lands in worcester is
> worth a look, if only to rule her out.
> > roslyn
> > alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > Roslyn, you may wish to read my post again. The
> > "clear up" was about which castle Stanley had
> > tenure of. I haven`t made any conclusions. Not
> > unless in your vocabulary "it seems that" means
> > conclusively. License to enter lands does not
> > mean resident of. You`ll also note that I haven`t
> > ruled out Hopton being "our ladie", just that it
> > now seems more unlikely. Worcester may not have been
> > the Lady Margaret`s destination.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ============
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > you might want to check what lands lady worcester inherited
> before
> > you make any solid conclusions.
> > >
> > > 1482.Nov. 26. William Stanley and Elizabeth were licensed to
> > enter all lands inherited by her from William Lucy, Eleanor Lucy
> and
> > Walter Hopton.
> > >
> > > bill and liz could have been in residence, or visiting any one
of
> > them.
> > >
> > > the stanleys also attended r3 cornation. it is possible they
were
> > on the progress with r3. AND *if* margaret beaufort did meet with
> the
> > stanleys, she wasn't overtly and immediately successful in
> converting
> > them to her cause, as wm was appointed chief justice of wales on
> > november 12, 1483.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > alanth252 <alanth252@> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the info. That just about clears it up. It
> > seems
> > > that neither Stanley nor Hopton were resident in Worcester.
> > > Of course it doesn`t prove conclusively that the Countess of
> > > Worcester wasn`t "our ladie", but the Lady Margaret was
> > > certainly on the wrong highway for Holt Castle, Wrexham,
> > > Wrexham is in North Wales and nowhere near either Worcester
> > > or Bridgnorth.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > ==============
> > >
> > > --- In , "yorkistjoe"
> > > <joe.schweninger@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This might help clear up the issue:
> > > >
> > > > Source: Michael K. Jones, "Sir William Stanley of Holt:
> Politics
> > > > and Family Allegiance in the Late Fifteenth Century," Welsh
> > History
> > > > Review 14 (June 1988): 1-22.
> > > >
> > > > "The most substantial of William's Welsh properties, the
> lordship
> > > of
> > > > Bromfield and Yale, was acquired at the very end of the
Yorkist
> > > > period, on 10 December 1484. Once again, it was obtained by
an
> > > > exchange, this time with the crown, and involved the lordship
> of
> > > > Thornbury (which William had received after Buckingham's
> > rebellion
> > > > in 1483) as well as a cash payment to the king. Bromfield and
> > Yale
> > > > formed one of the largest lordships in North Wales, valued at
> > over
> > > > £700 a year. Its administrative centre was Holt castle, which
> was
> > > > extensively improved by Stanley, including the conversion of
> the
> > > > exchequer into a strong square tower of two stories." (p.10)
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Posted by: "alanth252" alanth252@ alanth252
> > > > Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:55 am (PST)
> > > > 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 , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> I absolutely reject all Roslyn`s accusations


I would hate to see discussion and requests for opinion or information
quashed in this forum, for any reason.

No one owns information unless it is their iown intellectual property.

Didn't we recently moan and groan about scholars and researchers who
stake out Their Subject and try to suppress other research or opinion
on it? I guess it depends on whose pet theory is gored.

Katy

When Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort had their meeting, do we know where Margaret Beaufort was coming from?

Without knowing where she was coming from, I am not going to speculate too much, but if she was on her way to Holt from somewhere in southern or south-west England, going through Worcester might be perfectly sensible. Even today, travelling north - south in Wales is far from ideal. All the roads are far from direct because of the terrain, but if you set off from, say, Cardiff for a destination on the North Wales coast, the quickest way might well be to use the motorways, (M4, then M5 to Birmingham and M6) and then follow the A55 along the coast. The M5 passes very close to Worcester.

Ann

margaret's husband, thomas was at oxford, july 24th, and with richard at warwick until aug 15.

roslyn

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
When Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort had their meeting, do we know where Margaret Beaufort was coming from?

Without knowing where she was coming from, I am not going to speculate too much, but if she was on her way to Holt from somewhere in southern or south-west England, going through Worcester might be perfectly sensible. Even today, travelling north - south in Wales is far from ideal. All the roads are far from direct because of the terrain, but if you set off from, say, Cardiff for a destination on the North Wales coast, the quickest way might well be to use the motorways, (M4, then M5 to Birmingham and M6) and then follow the A55 along the coast. The M5 passes very close to Worcester.

Ann

addendum
see msg 9040 on this forum.
yorkistjoe posted it sept. 7.
the gist is: that stanley may not have recieved holt until 1484 when he recieved the lordship of bromfield and yale. holt was the administrative center for this lordship.

therefore margaret may not have been on her way to holt. if stanley didn't have holt in aug 1483, the question then goes back to what lands did thomas stanley hold in or near worcester, if any.

if he did not, then where was margaret off to. was she on a pilgrimage or banging the war drums?

roslyn
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
margaret's husband, thomas was at oxford, july 24th, and with richard at warwick until aug 15.

roslyn

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
When Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort had their meeting, do we know where Margaret Beaufort was coming from?

Without knowing where she was coming from, I am not going to speculate too much, but if she was on her way to Holt from somewhere in southern or south-west England, going through Worcester might be perfectly sensible. Even today, travelling north - south in Wales is far from ideal. All the roads are far from direct because of the terrain, but if you set off from, say, Cardiff for a destination on the North Wales coast, the quickest way might well be to use the motorways, (M4, then M5 to Birmingham and M6) and then follow the A55 along the coast. The M5 passes very close to Worcester.

Ann

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Best known is probably the Chateau Frontenac, the large Gothic-
style hotel in Quebec which was the venue for the Quebec Conference
of 1943.
>
> Ann
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> this book preview may provide you some leads for your
necessary verification.
> frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit vs
french.
> there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper
and lower canada..
> http://books.google.com/books?
id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy
&source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up to
> proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade,
Comte
> de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New France).
>
>
>
Thanks, all. Now I feel that I am making some progress although the
Cahiers extract is still yet to arrive. Marguerite evidently had a
daughter by the same name who is the de Loriol Chandieu ancestress, a
separate line to Frontenac (Leonora).

Look out for the Bulletin in March and this website forum at the same
time!
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Best known is probably the Chateau Frontenac, the large Gothic-
> style hotel in Quebec which was the venue for the Quebec Conference
> of 1943.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > this book preview may provide you some leads for your
> necessary verification.
> > frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit
vs
> french.
> > there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper
> and lower canada..
> > http://books.google.com/books?
>
id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy
> &source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A
> >
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up
to
> > proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade,
> Comte
> > de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New
France).
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks, all. Now I feel that I am making some progress although the
> Cahiers extract is still yet to arrive. Marguerite evidently had a
> daughter by the same name who is the de Loriol Chandieu ancestress,
a
> separate line to Frontenac (Leonora).
>
> Look out for the Bulletin in March and this website forum at the
same
> time!
> >
Now I can say that, providing my already mentioned sources pan out
and a forthcoming letter to a Count elicits an appropriate response,
I will have joined Lord Richard de la Pole to at least one living
descendant.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

congratulations. it's not as easy to track forwards as it is backwards.
here's hoping your "count", counts..:-))
roslyn

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Best known is probably the Chateau Frontenac, the large Gothic-
> style hotel in Quebec which was the venue for the Quebec Conference
> of 1943.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > this book preview may provide you some leads for your
> necessary verification.
> > frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit
vs
> french.
> > there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both upper
> and lower canada..
> > http://books.google.com/books?
>
id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy
> &source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A
> >
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up
to
> > proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de Buade,
> Comte
> > de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New
France).
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks, all. Now I feel that I am making some progress although the
> Cahiers extract is still yet to arrive. Marguerite evidently had a
> daughter by the same name who is the de Loriol Chandieu ancestress,
a
> separate line to Frontenac (Leonora).
>
> Look out for the Bulletin in March and this website forum at the
same
> time!
> >
Now I can say that, providing my already mentioned sources pan out
and a forthcoming letter to a Count elicits an appropriate response,
I will have joined Lord Richard de la Pole to at least one living
descendant.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> congratulations. it's not as easy to track forwards as it is
backwards.
> here's hoping your "count", counts..:-))
> roslyn
>
Thanks.

I have found an e-mail address for him - in London I think - and I
hope it's still in use. Very ironic that Lord Richard fled England
because of the Tudors then his descendants left France because of the
Revolution to arrive back in England (via Switzerland). Phrasing the
letter is the important thing, really.

> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen
Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Best known is probably the Chateau Frontenac, the large Gothic-
> > style hotel in Quebec which was the venue for the Quebec
Conference
> > of 1943.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > > fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > this book preview may provide you some leads for your
> > necessary verification.
> > > frontenac did play a significant role in canadian history..brit
> vs
> > french.
> > > there are parks and historic sites named frontenac in both
upper
> > and lower canada..
> > > http://books.google.com/books?
> >
>
id=BjI1RiuJM4IC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=raymond+de+phelippeaux+genealogy
> > &source=web&ots=NL6_jaOGic&sig=jwz5VLIcBuwReViSbCU6Frqo28A
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > If my sources on Richard de la pole's putative daughter come up
> to
> > > proof, then his probable descendants will include Louis de
Buade,
> > Comte
> > > de Frontenac (1622-98) who was Governor of Canada (then New
> France).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks, all. Now I feel that I am making some progress although
the
> > Cahiers extract is still yet to arrive. Marguerite evidently had
a
> > daughter by the same name who is the de Loriol Chandieu
ancestress,
> a
> > separate line to Frontenac (Leonora).
> >
> > Look out for the Bulletin in March and this website forum at the
> same
> > time!
> > >
> Now I can say that, providing my already mentioned sources pan out
> and a forthcoming letter to a Count elicits an appropriate
response,
> I will have joined Lord Richard de la Pole to at least one living
> descendant.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>