Henry Wiatt et.al.

Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
torture.
Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to discuss
Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone read
the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about to
get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to get
out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony Woodville?

L.M.L.,
Janet

--- In , "Janet" <forevere@...>
wrote:
>
> Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
> something else.

Oh, I don't think we ought to choke off discussions
of any sort, even if they go over ground already plowed. You never
know when someone may come up with a new fact or a new point of view.

After all, the same -- that it has already been discussed -- can be
said of the entire subject of Richard III.

Katy

Dear List
It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been doing
research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely interested in
finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William, and Joan Drax
were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some of the
material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If the
Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question it. The
Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of their lives
and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time as Richard
III.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.


Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
torture.
Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to discuss
Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone read
the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about to
get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to get
out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony Woodville?

L.M.L.,
Janet


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, apparently I am wrong. Carry on!





L.M.L.,

Janet

It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously very
serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if it's
untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
addressed.

From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could get
a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than Richard
III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just one or
two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what were
considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My guess
is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.

The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from Elizabethan
times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the Channel
Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th century a
most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him and
when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this case
he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife, who
gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only hours
later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've looked
about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but without
success.
Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old Countess
of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at his
brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when she
died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.

Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person existed
it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've had a
quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's reign
up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took part
in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of Henry
Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's parliament,
and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.

The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure individual,
and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more important
to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to do
than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
around Westminster all that often.
There is just one person who complained to Henry's first parliament
of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his petition
might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had he
been thought to be a key player with serious information. This man
was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at his
home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:

"Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king in
the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being in
the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
these words:
To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your discreet
wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of the
reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly seized
at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at the
commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England, and
with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the Tower of
London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower until
the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the said
John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also the
forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid the
said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000 marks
to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by their
obligations. . . ."
The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt Mary
Overy.
So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was threatened,
but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate that he
had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course was
a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly others,
so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder time of
it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have been
based on Forster's complaint in the first place.

Marie





--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear List
> It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
doing
> research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
interested in
> finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William, and
Joan Drax
> were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some of
the
> material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If the
> Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question it.
The
> Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
their lives
> and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time as
Richard
> III.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
> something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> torture.
> Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
discuss
> Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
read
> the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about
to
> get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
> got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
> some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to
get
> out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
> people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
Woodville?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR Times?

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.



It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously very
serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if it's
untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
addressed.

From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could get
a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than Richard
III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just one or
two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what were
considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My guess
is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.

The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from Elizabethan
times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the Channel
Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th century a
most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him and
when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this case
he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife, who
gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only hours
later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've looked
about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but without
success.
Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old Countess
of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at his
brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when she
died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.

Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person existed
it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've had a
quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's reign
up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took part
in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of Henry
Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's parliament,
and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.

The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure individual,
and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more important
to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to do
than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
around Westminster all that often.
There is just one person who complained to Henry's first parliament
of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his petition
might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had he
been thought to be a key player with serious information. This man
was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at his
home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:

"Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king in
the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being in
the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
these words:
To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your discreet
wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of the
reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly seized
at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at the
commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England, and
with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the Tower of
London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower until
the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the said
John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also the
forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid the
said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000 marks
to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by their
obligations. . . ."
The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt Mary
Overy.
So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was threatened,
but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate that he
had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course was
a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly others,
so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder time of
it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have been
based on Forster's complaint in the first place.

Marie

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear List
> It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
doing
> research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
interested in
> finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William, and
Joan Drax
> were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some of
the
> material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If the
> Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question it.
The
> Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
their lives
> and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time as
Richard
> III.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
> something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> torture.
> Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
discuss
> Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
read
> the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about
to
> get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
> got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
> some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to
get
> out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
> people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
Woodville?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

excellent info as usual marie.

but, i have a feeling the cat feeding wyatt might have some credibility. my cats frequently bring me "presents". i doubt if the jailer cooked the "food". wyatt like our nearer ancestors fighting in the trenches in ww1 would have dined on what he could get, and how he could get it.

i was also curious to exactly what was a barnacle. and how was it used in torture.
i'm still unclear as to how it might have been used. i've used a twitch on a horse's "upper lip/nose end". i'm still trying to visualise how the barnacle/twitch would have been used on a human. mind you if you pinch your upper lip, it does cause a significant amount of pain.

more surfing may net a clearer answer for me with regards as to how the barnacle was used on humans.

but this webpage shows a barnable as part of the wyatt family coat of arms.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/broye.htm

finding out when the wyatt's began using this heraldic device may or maynot add some clarity to the wyatt legend. i have to wonder if grandpa started telling the kiddies some tales when they asked what was on the c/of/a.

i also find that the "formal" story waxes eloquent with regard to richard actually being present at any torture session. such jobs were left for experts, and were often beyond the interest of monarchs. they only wanted the dry details, not the squeamish details.

i don't recall reading about wyatt in anything (books/chronicles) i've read, but i will be keeping my eye out for any info from now on.

what we do know is wyatt is supposedly connected to the buckingham rebellion. which helps narrow the time frame from roughly sept 83 until aug 85 for when wyatt's incarceration occurred.

roslyn


mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously very
serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if it's
untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
addressed.

From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could get
a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than Richard
III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just one or
two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what were
considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My guess
is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.

The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from Elizabethan
times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the Channel
Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th century a
most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him and
when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this case
he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife, who
gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only hours
later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've looked
about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but without
success.
Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old Countess
of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at his
brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when she
died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.

Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person existed
it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've had a
quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's reign
up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took part
in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of Henry
Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's parliament,
and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.

The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure individual,
and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more important
to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to do
than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
around Westminster all that often.
There is just one person who complained to Henry's first parliament
of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his petition
might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had he
been thought to be a key player with serious information. This man
was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at his
home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:

"Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king in
the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being in
the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
these words:
To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your discreet
wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of the
reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly seized
at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at the
commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England, and
with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the Tower of
London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower until
the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the said
John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also the
forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid the
said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000 marks
to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by their
obligations. . . ."
The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt Mary
Overy.
So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was threatened,
but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate that he
had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course was
a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly others,
so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder time of
it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have been
based on Forster's complaint in the first place.

Marie

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear List
> It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
doing
> research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
interested in
> finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William, and
Joan Drax
> were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some of
the
> material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If the
> Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question it.
The
> Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
their lives
> and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time as
Richard
> III.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
> something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> torture.
> Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
discuss
> Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
read
> the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about
to
> get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
> got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
> some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to
get
> out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
> people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
Woodville?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
> motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person existed
> it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true.


I know that tale of the cat bringing a bird to a prisoner every day,
or at least often enough to keep him alive, crops up in other places
-- I mentioned it to a friend who says it's in "The Prisoner of Zenda"
too.

I don't have a copy of the book so I can't check. Having owned cats
all my life, though, I think that would be one athletic cat to catch a
pigeon every day. Or ever. Cats catch small birds, but a pigeon is
another story.

Katy

Has anyone actually seen the manuscript? Why want Romney release the
whole manuscript instead of pits and pieces.
Le .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.


Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR Times?

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.



It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously very
serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if it's
untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
addressed.

From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could get
a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than Richard
III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just one or
two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what were
considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My guess
is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.

The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from Elizabethan
times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the Channel
Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th century a
most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him and
when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this case
he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife, who
gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only hours
later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've looked
about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but without
success.
Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old Countess
of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at his
brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when she
died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.

Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person existed
it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've had a
quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's reign
up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took part
in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of Henry
Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's parliament,
and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.

The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure individual,
and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more important
to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to do
than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
around Westminster all that often.
There is just one person who complained to Henry's first parliament
of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his petition
might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had he
been thought to be a key player with serious information. This man
was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at his
home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:

"Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king in
the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being in
the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
these words:
To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your discreet
wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of the
reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly seized
at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at the
commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England, and
with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the Tower of
London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower until
the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the said
John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also the
forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid the
said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000 marks
to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by their
obligations. . . ."
The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt Mary
Overy.
So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was threatened,
but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate that he
had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course was
a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly others,
so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder time of
it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have been
based on Forster's complaint in the first place.

Marie

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear List
> It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
doing
> research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
interested in
> finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William, and
Joan Drax
> were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some of
the
> material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If the
> Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question it.
The
> Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
their lives
> and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time as
Richard
> III.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk about
> something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> torture.
> Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
discuss
> Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
read
> the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just about
to
> get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago and
> got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There were
> some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had to
get
> out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk! What do
> people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
Woodville?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
Times?

Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
was only elected three times.

Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic is
obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.

A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
Wyatt legend.

Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":

". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."

"By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by the
authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his wrists
against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes longer."

I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
anachronism.

Marie

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
>
> It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
very
> serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
it's
> untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> addressed.
>
> From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could
get
> a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
Richard
> III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
one or
> two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
were
> considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
guess
> is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
> assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.
>
> The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
Elizabethan
> times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
Channel
> Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
century a
> most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
> Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
and
> when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
case
> he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
who
> gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
hours
> later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
looked
> about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
without
> success.
> Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
Countess
> of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
his
> brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
she
> died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
>
> Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
> motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
existed
> it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
> Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
> London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
> peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
had a
> quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
reign
> up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
part
> in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
Henry
> Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
parliament,
> and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
>
> The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
individual,
> and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
important
> to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
do
> than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
> didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> around Westminster all that often.
> There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
parliament
> of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
petition
> might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had
he
> been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
man
> was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
> 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
his
> home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
>
> "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
in
> the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
in
> the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> these words:
> To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
discreet
> wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
the
> reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
seized
> at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
the
> commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
> England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
and
> with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
Tower of
> London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
until
> the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
> have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
said
> John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
the
> forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
the
> said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
marks
> to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
their
> obligations. . . ."
> The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
Mary
> Overy.
> So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
> before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
threatened,
> but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
> version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
that he
> had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
> refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
> best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
was
> a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
> assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
others,
> so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
time of
> it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
been
> based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear List
> > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> doing
> > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> interested in
> > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
and
> Joan Drax
> > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
of
> the
> > material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If
the
> > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
it.
> The
> > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> their lives
> > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
as
> Richard
> > III.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
about
> > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> > torture.
> > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> discuss
> > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> read
> > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
about
> to
> > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago
and
> > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
were
> > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
to
> get
> > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
What do
> > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> Woodville?
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have never seen the manuscript, but does that really mean we should
throw suspicion on it like a net. Who among the list subscribers have seen
and read it?
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
Times?

Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
was only elected three times.

Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic is
obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.

A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
Wyatt legend.

Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":

". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."

"By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by the
authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his wrists
against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes longer."

I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
anachronism.

Marie

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
>
> It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
very
> serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
it's
> untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> addressed.
>
> From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could
get
> a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
Richard
> III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
one or
> two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
were
> considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
guess
> is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
> assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.
>
> The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
Elizabethan
> times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
Channel
> Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
century a
> most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
> Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
and
> when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
case
> he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
who
> gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
hours
> later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
looked
> about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
without
> success.
> Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
Countess
> of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
his
> brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
she
> died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
>
> Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
> motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
existed
> it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
> Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
> London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
> peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
had a
> quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
reign
> up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
part
> in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
Henry
> Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
parliament,
> and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
>
> The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
individual,
> and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
important
> to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
do
> than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
> didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> around Westminster all that often.
> There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
parliament
> of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
petition
> might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had
he
> been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
man
> was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
> 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
his
> home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
>
> "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
in
> the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
in
> the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> these words:
> To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
discreet
> wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
the
> reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
seized
> at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
the
> commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
> England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
and
> with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
Tower of
> London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
until
> the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
> have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
said
> John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
the
> forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
the
> said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
marks
> to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
their
> obligations. . . ."
> The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
Mary
> Overy.
> So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
> before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
threatened,
> but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
> version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
that he
> had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
> refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
> best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
was
> a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
> assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
others,
> so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
time of
> it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
been
> based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear List
> > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> doing
> > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> interested in
> > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
and
> Joan Drax
> > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
of
> the
> > material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If
the
> > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
it.
> The
> > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> their lives
> > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
as
> Richard
> > III.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
about
> > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> > torture.
> > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> discuss
> > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> read
> > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
about
> to
> > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago
and
> > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
were
> > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
to
> get
> > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
What do
> > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> Woodville?
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Jacob, I haven't seen this Manuscript but Marie has seen parts of it. From this, she thinks it to be 16th, 17th or even 18th century in origin by it's style and we have heard the "cat" myth told about other people.
Marie has posted on here for a good few years - we know her and tend to trust her judgement. Torture just wasn't used so much before the Tudors arrived and Kings didn't oversee it personally.
On balance, I tend not to trust the Manuscript until I see more of it - it just doesn't describe the way Richard III behaved or would behave.

----- Original Message -----
From: Le Bateman
To:
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.


I have never seen the manuscript, but does that really mean we should
throw suspicion on it like a net. Who among the list subscribers have seen
and read it?
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
Times?

Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
was only elected three times.

Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic is
obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.

A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
Wyatt legend.

Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":

". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."

"By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by the
authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his wrists
against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes longer."

I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
anachronism.

Marie

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
>
> It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
very
> serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
it's
> untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> addressed.
>
> From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could
get
> a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
Richard
> III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
one or
> two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
were
> considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
guess
> is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
> assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.
>
> The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
Elizabethan
> times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
Channel
> Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
century a
> most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
> Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
and
> when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
case
> he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
who
> gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
hours
> later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
looked
> about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
without
> success.
> Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
Countess
> of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
his
> brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
she
> died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
>
> Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
> motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
existed
> it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
> Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
> London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
> peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
had a
> quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
reign
> up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
part
> in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
Henry
> Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
parliament,
> and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
>
> The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
individual,
> and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
important
> to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
do
> than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
> didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> around Westminster all that often.
> There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
parliament
> of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
petition
> might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had
he
> been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
man
> was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
> 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
his
> home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
>
> "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
in
> the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
in
> the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> these words:
> To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
discreet
> wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
the
> reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
seized
> at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
the
> commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
> England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
and
> with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
Tower of
> London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
until
> the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
> have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
said
> John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
the
> forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
the
> said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
marks
> to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
their
> obligations. . . ."
> The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
Mary
> Overy.
> So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
> before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
threatened,
> but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
> version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
that he
> had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
> refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
> best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
was
> a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
> assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
others,
> so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
time of
> it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
been
> based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear List
> > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> doing
> > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> interested in
> > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
and
> Joan Drax
> > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
of
> the
> > material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If
the
> > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
it.
> The
> > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> their lives
> > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
as
> Richard
> > III.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
about
> > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> > torture.
> > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> discuss
> > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> read
> > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
about
> to
> > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago
and
> > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
were
> > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
to
> get
> > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
What do
> > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> Woodville?
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> I have never seen the manuscript, but does that really mean we
should
> throw suspicion on it like a net. Who among the list subscribers
have seen
> and read it?
> Le

Lee, I don't think any of us (including you) have seen the MS. I have
read extracts from it on the web, as you evidently have too. My
observations are based on that. I did say you should try to view the
original or a photocopy as well. I throw suspicion on it for the
reasons I've outlined:
1) Henry Wyatt wasn't worth that kind of treatment by Richard
2) Torture wasn't normal practice then, as it became in tudor times.
The manacles were a favourite Tudor torture. The whole thing sounds
anachronistic
3) The part about Richard being present at the daiy torture sessions
can't be true because he was simply never available to be
4) And this is the biggie though I haven't mentioned it before:
Torture by monarchs was not considered so okay in the 15th century.
Edward IV did it once, and all the chroniclers picked up on it. It
was fairly shocking by the standards of the day. Yet, despite all the
adverse propaganda against Richard under henry VII, no one ever
accused him of sanctioning torture.
5) Also not mentioned earlier. Henry Wyatt didn't marry until 1502 -
is the birth date of 1460 given for him in these online bios
reliable? Was he perhaps too young to have been active during
Richard's reign?
6) There is a whole genre of folktales where the hero or heroine is
helped by an animal. Many of these have a lucky cat (eg Dick
Whittington and Puss in Boots). There is also a distinct group where
the hero-/heroine is a prisoner. The one that immediately comes to
mind is Branwen daughter of Llyr and the little bird who became her
friend took her message to her brother Bendigeidfran.

I'm sorry, Lee, but I think you are clutching at straws. I also
appear to have Wyatts in my direct family tree - whether they'd be
descended from Sir Henry, I don't know - but I still don't believe
this.
Sometimes, of course, a family story has some germ of truth but it's
been overlaid with so much fiction the gold hard to discern, and the
tale may even have got attached over time to the wrong individual.
The sort of treatment talked about in this story would not have been
normal before Henry VIII's reign. It would not have been normal for
anyone not in serious trouble with the state - these should maybe be
your starting points.

I'm sorry, Lee, but dodgy (though fun) family tales abound from this
era. By the time folklore had finished with Richard's constable Sir
Ralph Ashton, he was eating babies or some such thing. And Sir
Maurice Berekley of Beverstone killed a dragon on Burley Beacon in
the New Forest, you know. There are people seriously trying to
rationalise that one too (ie maybe it was the last surviving wolf
rather tnan a dragon, etc). The fact that it's a classic folk tale
with specific pagan ritual origins, and is found all over the
country - very often attached to local medieval heroes - means
nothing to these folks.

If you want to test this story, then you need to get the document,
and also do some digging in the records of Richard's reign and around
to see whether there is anything to either prove or disprove it. My
money's on the latter.

Sorry,

Marie


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
> contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
> Times?
>
> Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
> royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
> when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
> office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
> but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
> was only elected three times.
>
> Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
> unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic
is
> obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
> could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
> basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
> praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
> would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
> this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
> Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
>
> A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
> the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
> his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
> Wyatt legend.
>
> Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
> These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
> pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
> informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
> in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
>
> ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
> actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
> being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
> the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
> travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
>
> "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by
the
> authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
> who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his
wrists
> against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
> prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
longer."
>
> I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
> goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
> anachronism.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
> very
> > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
> it's
> > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
could
> get
> > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> Richard
> > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
> one or
> > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
> were
> > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
> guess
> > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe
to
> > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
himself.
> >
> > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> Elizabethan
> > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
> Channel
> > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> century a
> > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
governor,
> > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
> and
> > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
> case
> > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
> who
> > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> hours
> > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> looked
> > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> without
> > success.
> > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> Countess
> > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
> his
> > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
> she
> > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
> >
> > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure
folk
> > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> existed
> > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true.
Dick
> > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor
of
> > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
simple
> > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
> had a
> > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
> reign
> > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
> part
> > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
> Henry
> > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> parliament,
> > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> >
> > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> individual,
> > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> important
> > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
> do
> > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway
he
> > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> > around Westminster all that often.
> > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> parliament
> > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> petition
> > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced
had
> he
> > been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
> man
> > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
Friday
> > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
> his
> > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> >
> > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
> in
> > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
> in
> > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> > these words:
> > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> discreet
> > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
> the
> > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> seized
> > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
> the
> > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king
of
> > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
> and
> > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> Tower of
> > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
> until
> > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely
to
> > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
> said
> > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
> the
> > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
> the
> > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
> marks
> > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
> their
> > obligations. . . ."
> > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
> Mary
> > Overy.
> > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
tactic
> > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> threatened,
> > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his
own
> > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
> that he
> > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get
a
> > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been
his
> > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
> was
> > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot
to
> > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> others,
> > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
> time of
> > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
> been
> > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear List
> > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > doing
> > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > interested in
> > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
> and
> > Joan Drax
> > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
> of
> > the
> > > material you can not rely on, while other material is great.
If
> the
> > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
> it.
> > The
> > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> > their lives
> > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
> as
> > Richard
> > > III.
> > > Le
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after
going
> > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
> about
> > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard
of
> > > torture.
> > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > discuss
> > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > read
> > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
> about
> > to
> > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks
ago
> and
> > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
> were
> > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
> to
> > get
> > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
> What do
> > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> > Woodville?
> > >
> > > L.M.L.,
> > > Janet
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > I have never seen the manuscript, but does that really mean we
> should
> > throw suspicion on it like a net. Who among the list subscribers
> have seen
> > and read it?
> > Le
>
> Lee, I don't think any of us (including you) have seen the MS. I have
> read extracts from it on the web, as you evidently have too. My
> observations are based on that. I did say you should try to view the
> original or a photocopy as well. I throw suspicion on it for the
> reasons I've outlined:
> 1) Henry Wyatt wasn't worth that kind of treatment by Richard
> 2) Torture wasn't normal practice then, as it became in tudor times.
> The manacles were a favourite Tudor torture.


Another thing that occurred to me was Why was he being tortured daily?
Even the Tudors didn't torture people out of pure meanness, just to
hear them scream. Torture was not a punishment, it was a means to an
end, usually either getting information or forcing the victim to
recant and change his story about something.

Katy

Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept in be? I have
found a number of sites that have many errors on them For example the
Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington. This is a false
statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire. His children were
born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who married
Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor born in 1502
was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not all of his
children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry VII. Very
little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died in childbirth
giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am terribly sorry about
the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in the reigns of
Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too would have been
living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
How can I find information on who in Henry's family would have
supported these kings.
One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of Norfolk. He
was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was the Earl of
Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House of Tudors and
rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story had it that he
became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate. Again I am sorry
for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late mother is one of
his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The Poet" Wiatt. I
hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
Times?

Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
was only elected three times.

Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic is
obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.

A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
Wyatt legend.

Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":

". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."

"By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by the
authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his wrists
against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes longer."

I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
anachronism.

Marie

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
>
> It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
very
> serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
it's
> untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> addressed.
>
> From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you could
get
> a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
Richard
> III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
one or
> two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
were
> considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
guess
> is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe to
> assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of himself.
>
> The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
Elizabethan
> times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
Channel
> Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
century a
> most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's governor,
> Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
and
> when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
case
> he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
who
> gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
hours
> later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
looked
> about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
without
> success.
> Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
Countess
> of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
his
> brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
she
> died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
>
> Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure folk
> motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
existed
> it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true. Dick
> Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor of
> London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a simple
> peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
had a
> quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
reign
> up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
part
> in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
Henry
> Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
parliament,
> and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
>
> The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
individual,
> and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
important
> to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
do
> than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway he
> didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> around Westminster all that often.
> There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
parliament
> of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
petition
> might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced had
he
> been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
man
> was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on Friday
> 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
his
> home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
>
> "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
in
> the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
in
> the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> these words:
> To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
discreet
> wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
the
> reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
seized
> at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
the
> commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of
> England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
and
> with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
Tower of
> London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
until
> the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to
> have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
said
> John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
the
> forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
the
> said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
marks
> to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
their
> obligations. . . ."
> The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
Mary
> Overy.
> So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal tactic
> before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
threatened,
> but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his own
> version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
that he
> had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get a
> refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been his
> best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
was
> a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot to
> assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
others,
> so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
time of
> it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
been
> based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear List
> > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> doing
> > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> interested in
> > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
and
> Joan Drax
> > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
of
> the
> > material you can not rely on, while other material is great. If
the
> > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
it.
> The
> > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> their lives
> > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
as
> Richard
> > III.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after going
> > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
about
> > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard of
> > torture.
> > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> discuss
> > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> read
> > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
about
> to
> > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks ago
and
> > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
were
> > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
to
> get
> > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
What do
> > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> Woodville?
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote: I am terribly sorry about
> the diversion.


Don't be. It was an interesting sidetrip.

Katy

Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should gather
all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
commentaries, of course).
I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of the
Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor period -
though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale. Thomas the
poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel held there
by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind Katy's point
that torture was for the state a means of eliciting information, not
a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this story are
based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having it done
for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls down on
the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never mind that
he wasn't actually a psychopath).
The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until 1603.

You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies. I got
the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just arrived at
by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same bio
claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and an
esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both be true.
If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been esquire
thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the Body. The
fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth. Henry
did create a number of these just before his coronation, and I have
the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after the battle
of Stoke two years later.
Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography)?
The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty reliable since
the entries have all been written recently by professional historians
who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a website
that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published primary
sources for that period for finding references to individuals are the
Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
separate series).
For unpublished sources the English National Archives website -
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the Archives
button on the top bar has options for Documents Online (downloadable
stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
documents online section includes wills proved at the archbishop of
Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search for Wyatt
wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find exact
matches); there are several for the early 16th century, including Sir
Henry's.
The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website has an
index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a subscription -
quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or email
the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills proved at
local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an online
index of wills covering the early period (individual wills tend not
to be included in the general catalogue indexes).

To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue entries
include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from the
south of England. If you find a document you really think you need a
copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents when you
get them!

Good luck,

Marie






--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept in
be? I have
> found a number of sites that have many errors on them For example
the
> Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington. This is
a false
> statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire. His
children were
> born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who
married
> Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor born
in 1502
> was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not all of
his
> children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry VII.
Very
> little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died in
childbirth
> giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am terribly
sorry about
> the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in the
reigns of
> Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too would
have been
> living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> How can I find information on who in Henry's family would
have
> supported these kings.
> One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
Norfolk. He
> was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was the
Earl of
> Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House of
Tudors and
> rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story had
it that he
> became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate. Again I
am sorry
> for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late mother is
one of
> his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The Poet"
Wiatt. I
> hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
> contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
> Times?
>
> Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in on
> royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
> when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
> office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
> but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and he
> was only elected three times.
>
> Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
> unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that characteristic
is
> obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat who
> could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
> basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually got
> praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
> would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
> this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
> Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
>
> A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend about
> the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
> his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the Henry
> Wyatt legend.
>
> Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
> These are glossed in the online article I read as something used to
> pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our writer's
> informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of torture
> in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
>
> ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
> actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far from
> being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
> the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
> travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
>
> "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by
the
> authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for those
> who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his
wrists
> against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
> prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
longer."
>
> I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
> goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
> anachronism.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are obviously
> very
> > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
> it's
> > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were put
> > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
could
> get
> > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the writing
> > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> Richard
> > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
> one or
> > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
> were
> > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
> guess
> > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > collection was put together. It would certainly be very unsafe
to
> > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
himself.
> >
> > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> Elizabethan
> > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by the
> > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
> Channel
> > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> century a
> > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
governor,
> > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
> and
> > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In this
> case
> > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant wife,
> who
> > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> hours
> > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> looked
> > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> without
> > success.
> > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> Countess
> > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III at
> his
> > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it when
> she
> > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
> >
> > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure
folk
> > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> existed
> > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true.
Dick
> > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice mayor
of
> > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
simple
> > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
> had a
> > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
> reign
> > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
> part
> > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
> Henry
> > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> parliament,
> > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> >
> > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> individual,
> > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> important
> > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things to
> do
> > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and anyway
he
> > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't even
> > around Westminster all that often.
> > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> parliament
> > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> petition
> > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced
had
> he
> > been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
> man
> > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in the
> > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
Friday
> > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested at
> his
> > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> >
> > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king
> in
> > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being
> in
> > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in
> > these words:
> > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present
> > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> discreet
> > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of
> the
> > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> seized
> > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
> the
> > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king
of
> > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England,
> and
> > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> Tower of
> > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and
> > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
> until
> > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely
to
> > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
> said
> > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
> the
> > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
> the
> > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And
> > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
> marks
> > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
> their
> > obligations. . . ."
> > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
> Mary
> > Overy.
> > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
tactic
> > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> threatened,
> > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his
own
> > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
> that he
> > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could get
a
> > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been
his
> > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of course
> was
> > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a plot
to
> > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> others,
> > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
> time of
> > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not have
> been
> > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear List
> > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > doing
> > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > interested in
> > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard, William,
> and
> > Joan Drax
> > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York. Some
> of
> > the
> > > material you can not rely on, while other material is great.
If
> the
> > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would question
> it.
> > The
> > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects of
> > their lives
> > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same time
> as
> > Richard
> > > III.
> > > Le
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after
going
> > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
> about
> > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse Richard
of
> > > torture.
> > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > discuss
> > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > read
> > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
> about
> > to
> > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks
ago
> and
> > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
> were
> > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store had
> to
> > get
> > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
> What do
> > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and Anthony
> > Woodville?
> > >
> > > L.M.L.,
> > > Janet
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a 16th
century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the following
link:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30



--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should gather
> all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
> commentaries, of course).
> I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of the
> Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor period -
> though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale. Thomas the
> poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel held
there
> by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind Katy's
point
> that torture was for the state a means of eliciting information,
not
> a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this story are
> based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having it done
> for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls down
on
> the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never mind that
> he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
> Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until 1603.
>
> You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies. I got
> the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just arrived
at
> by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same bio
> claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and an
> esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both be
true.
> If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been esquire
> thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the Body.
The
> fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth. Henry
> did create a number of these just before his coronation, and I have
> the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after the
battle
> of Stoke two years later.
> Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography)?
> The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty reliable
since
> the entries have all been written recently by professional
historians
> who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a
website
> that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published primary
> sources for that period for finding references to individuals are
the
> Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
> separate series).
> For unpublished sources the English National Archives website -
> www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the Archives
> button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
(downloadable
> stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
> documents online section includes wills proved at the archbishop of
> Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search for
Wyatt
> wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find exact
> matches); there are several for the early 16th century, including
Sir
> Henry's.
> The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
> Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website has an
> index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a subscription -
> quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or email
> the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills proved
at
> local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an online
> index of wills covering the early period (individual wills tend not
> to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
>
> To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue entries
> include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from the
> south of England. If you find a document you really think you need
a
> copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents when you
> get them!
>
> Good luck,
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept in
> be? I have
> > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
example
> the
> > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington. This
is
> a false
> > statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire. His
> children were
> > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who
> married
> > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor born
> in 1502
> > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not all of
> his
> > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry VII.
> Very
> > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died in
> childbirth
> > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am terribly
> sorry about
> > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in the
> reigns of
> > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too
would
> have been
> > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > How can I find information on who in Henry's family would
> have
> > supported these kings.
> > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
> Norfolk. He
> > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was the
> Earl of
> > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House of
> Tudors and
> > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story had
> it that he
> > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate. Again
I
> am sorry
> > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late mother
is
> one of
> > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The
Poet"
> Wiatt. I
> > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot be
> > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor FOUR
> > Times?
> >
> > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-in
on
> > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam Bam;
> > when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
> > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two terms,
> > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4 and
he
> > was only elected three times.
> >
> > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring you
> > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
characteristic
> is
> > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a cat
who
> > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a daily
> > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they actually
got
> > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think it
> > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats do
> > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
> > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
> >
> > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend
about
> > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company throughout
> > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the
Henry
> > Wyatt legend.
> >
> > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to wear.
> > These are glossed in the online article I read as something used
to
> > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our
writer's
> > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of
torture
> > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> >
> > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative, had
> > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far
from
> > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons in
> > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during is
> > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> >
> > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured by
> the
> > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for
those
> > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his
> wrists
> > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and the
> > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
> longer."
> >
> > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all this
> > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
> > anachronism.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
obviously
> > very
> > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even if
> > it's
> > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to be
> > > addressed.
> > >
> > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were
put
> > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
> could
> > get
> > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the
writing
> > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> > Richard
> > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are just
> > one or
> > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for what
> > were
> > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era. My
> > guess
> > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
unsafe
> to
> > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
> himself.
> > >
> > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> > Elizabethan
> > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise heroic
> > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out by
the
> > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of the
> > Channel
> > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> > century a
> > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> governor,
> > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by him
> > and
> > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In
this
> > case
> > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant
wife,
> > who
> > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> > hours
> > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> > looked
> > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> > without
> > > success.
> > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> > Countess
> > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard III
at
> > his
> > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it
when
> > she
> > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard III.
> > >
> > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is pure
> folk
> > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> > existed
> > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are true.
> Dick
> > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice
mayor
> of
> > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
> simple
> > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but I've
> > had a
> > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry VII's
> > reign
> > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who took
> > part
> > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention of
> > Henry
> > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> > parliament,
> > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > >
> > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > individual,
> > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> > important
> > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better things
to
> > do
> > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
anyway
> he
> > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't
even
> > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > parliament
> > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> > petition
> > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have experienced
> had
> > he
> > > been thought to be a key player with serious information. This
> > man
> > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in
the
> > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
> Friday
> > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was arrested
at
> > his
> > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > >
> > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord
king
> > in
> > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England
being
> > in
> > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire,
in
> > > these words:
> > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
present
> > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> > discreet
> > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year
of
> > the
> > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> > seized
> > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at
> > the
> > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right
king
> of
> > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
England,
> > and
> > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> > Tower of
> > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons
and
> > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his
> > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower
> > until
> > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
likely
> to
> > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the
> > said
> > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and
> > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also
> > the
> > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid
> > the
> > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks.
And
> > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000
> > marks
> > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by
> > their
> > > obligations. . . ."
> > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of Dt
> > Mary
> > > Overy.
> > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
> tactic
> > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > threatened,
> > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to his
> own
> > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and demonstrate
> > that he
> > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could
get
> a
> > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have been
> his
> > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of
course
> > was
> > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a
plot
> to
> > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> > others,
> > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much harder
> > time of
> > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not
have
> > been
> > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear List
> > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > doing
> > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > > interested in
> > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
William,
> > and
> > > Joan Drax
> > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York.
Some
> > of
> > > the
> > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
great.
> If
> > the
> > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
question
> > it.
> > > The
> > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all aspects
of
> > > their lives
> > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same
time
> > as
> > > Richard
> > > > III.
> > > > Le
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > To: <>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum (after
> going
> > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can talk
> > about
> > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
Richard
> of
> > > > torture.
> > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > > discuss
> > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > > read
> > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm just
> > about
> > > to
> > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few weeks
> ago
> > and
> > > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore. There
> > were
> > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The store
had
> > to
> > > get
> > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her talk!
> > What do
> > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
Anthony
> > > Woodville?
> > > >
> > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > Janet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

The original idea that inspired the legend in the Wyatt Manuscript?

Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham, now
dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the old
manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.

This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys family
(descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was a
member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell out
with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing further
north.

He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth and was
soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the army
of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII did
not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to provide Sir
Gilbert with food.

In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys nephew
eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will you
give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to you!").

Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane although
documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass leave
us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two different
wives.

PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham Market
next year, we expect to be organising a day out.

--- In , dances_with_spaniels
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a 16th
> century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
following
> link:
>
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
gather
> > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
> > commentaries, of course).
> > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of the
> > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor period -
> > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale. Thomas
the
> > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel held
> there
> > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind Katy's
> point
> > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting information,
> not
> > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this story
are
> > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having it
done
> > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls down
> on
> > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never mind
that
> > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
> > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until 1603.
> >
> > You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies. I
got
> > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
arrived
> at
> > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same bio
> > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and an
> > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both be
> true.
> > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been esquire
> > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the Body.
> The
> > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth.
Henry
> > did create a number of these just before his coronation, and I
have
> > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after the
> battle
> > of Stoke two years later.
> > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography)?
> > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty reliable
> since
> > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> historians
> > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a
> website
> > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published primary
> > sources for that period for finding references to individuals are
> the
> > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
> > separate series).
> > For unpublished sources the English National Archives website -
> > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
Archives
> > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> (downloadable
> > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
> > documents online section includes wills proved at the archbishop
of
> > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search for
> Wyatt
> > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find
exact
> > matches); there are several for the early 16th century, including
> Sir
> > Henry's.
> > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
> > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website has
an
> > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
subscription -
> > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or
email
> > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills proved
> at
> > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an online
> > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills tend
not
> > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> >
> > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue entries
> > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from the
> > south of England. If you find a document you really think you
need
> a
> > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents when
you
> > get them!
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
in
> > be? I have
> > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> example
> > the
> > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington.
This
> is
> > a false
> > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire. His
> > children were
> > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who
> > married
> > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor
born
> > in 1502
> > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not all
of
> > his
> > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry
VII.
> > Very
> > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died in
> > childbirth
> > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
terribly
> > sorry about
> > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in
the
> > reigns of
> > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too
> would
> > have been
> > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
would
> > have
> > > supported these kings.
> > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
> > Norfolk. He
> > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was
the
> > Earl of
> > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House of
> > Tudors and
> > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story
had
> > it that he
> > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate.
Again
> I
> > am sorry
> > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
mother
> is
> > one of
> > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The
> Poet"
> > Wiatt. I
> > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > Le
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot
be
> > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor
FOUR
> > > Times?
> > >
> > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-
in
> on
> > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam
Bam;
> > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
> > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two
terms,
> > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4
and
> he
> > > was only elected three times.
> > >
> > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring
you
> > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> characteristic
> > is
> > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a
cat
> who
> > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a
daily
> > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
actually
> got
> > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think
it
> > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats
do
> > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
> > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
> > >
> > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend
> about
> > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
throughout
> > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the
> Henry
> > > Wyatt legend.
> > >
> > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to
wear.
> > > These are glossed in the online article I read as something
used
> to
> > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our
> writer's
> > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of
> torture
> > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > >
> > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative,
had
> > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far
> from
> > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons
in
> > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during
is
> > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > >
> > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured
by
> > the
> > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for
> those
> > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his
> > wrists
> > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and
the
> > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
> > longer."
> > >
> > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all
this
> > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
> > > anachronism.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> obviously
> > > very
> > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even
if
> > > it's
> > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to
be
> > > > addressed.
> > > >
> > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were
> put
> > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
> > could
> > > get
> > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the
> writing
> > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> > > Richard
> > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are
just
> > > one or
> > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for
what
> > > were
> > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era.
My
> > > guess
> > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> unsafe
> > to
> > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
> > himself.
> > > >
> > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> > > Elizabethan
> > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
heroic
> > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out
by
> the
> > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of
the
> > > Channel
> > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> > > century a
> > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > governor,
> > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by
him
> > > and
> > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In
> this
> > > case
> > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant
> wife,
> > > who
> > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> > > hours
> > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> > > looked
> > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> > > without
> > > > success.
> > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> > > Countess
> > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard
III
> at
> > > his
> > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it
> when
> > > she
> > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard
III.
> > > >
> > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
pure
> > folk
> > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> > > existed
> > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
true.
> > Dick
> > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice
> mayor
> > of
> > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
> > simple
> > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but
I've
> > > had a
> > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry
VII's
> > > reign
> > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who
took
> > > part
> > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention
of
> > > Henry
> > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> > > parliament,
> > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > >
> > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > individual,
> > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> > > important
> > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
things
> to
> > > do
> > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> anyway
> > he
> > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't
> even
> > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > parliament
> > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> > > petition
> > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
experienced
> > had
> > > he
> > > > been thought to be a key player with serious information.
This
> > > man
> > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in
> the
> > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
> > Friday
> > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
arrested
> at
> > > his
> > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > >
> > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord
> king
> > > in
> > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England
> being
> > > in
> > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
esquire,
> in
> > > > these words:
> > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> present
> > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> > > discreet
> > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
year
> of
> > > the
> > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> > > seized
> > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and
at
> > > the
> > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right
> king
> > of
> > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> England,
> > > and
> > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> > > Tower of
> > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
irons
> and
> > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for
his
> > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
Tower
> > > until
> > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> likely
> > to
> > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover,
the
> > > said
> > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced
and
> > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and
also
> > > the
> > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he
paid
> > > the
> > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
marks.
> And
> > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
1,000
> > > marks
> > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king,
by
> > > their
> > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of
Dt
> > > Mary
> > > > Overy.
> > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
> > tactic
> > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > threatened,
> > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to
his
> > own
> > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
demonstrate
> > > that he
> > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could
> get
> > a
> > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have
been
> > his
> > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of
> course
> > > was
> > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a
> plot
> > to
> > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> > > others,
> > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
harder
> > > time of
> > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not
> have
> > > been
> > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear List
> > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > doing
> > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > > > interested in
> > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> William,
> > > and
> > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York.
> Some
> > > of
> > > > the
> > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> great.
> > If
> > > the
> > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> question
> > > it.
> > > > The
> > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
aspects
> of
> > > > their lives
> > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same
> time
> > > as
> > > > Richard
> > > > > III.
> > > > > Le
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > To: <>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
(after
> > going
> > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can
talk
> > > about
> > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> Richard
> > of
> > > > > torture.
> > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > > > discuss
> > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > > > read
> > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm
just
> > > about
> > > > to
> > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
weeks
> > ago
> > > and
> > > > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore.
There
> > > were
> > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
store
> had
> > > to
> > > > get
> > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
talk!
> > > What do
> > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> Anthony
> > > > Woodville?
> > > > >
> > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > Janet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>

interesting the wife's name is "jane", but documents prove she was elizabeth.

it would seem that during this era, jane could be a common alternative/pet name for elizabeths. i.e. elizabeth lambert m. william shore, but was known as jane shore.

if i correctly recall patsy is a pet name for martha, and there seems to be no rhyme nor reason for these names to link to each other.

i can see molly coming from mary, and polly too, as it rhymes with molly.

i can see jane/joan/joanne. but like martha/patsy, jane/elizabeth just doesn't seem to go together.

this info causes me to think, i should have a another look at "missing" janes and elizabeths in my research and see if i can find the records under the alternative name.

i have several elizabeth unknown married mr. so'n'so. perhaps i should be looking for jane unknown married....

thanks for sharing this possibility.

roslyn





Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
The original idea that inspired the legend in the Wyatt Manuscript?

Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham, now
dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the old
manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.

This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys family
(descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was a
member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell out
with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing further
north.

He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth and was
soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the army
of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII did
not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to provide Sir
Gilbert with food.

In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys nephew
eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will you
give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to you!").

Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane although
documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass leave
us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two different
wives.

PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham Market
next year, we expect to be organising a day out.

--- In , dances_with_spaniels
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a 16th
> century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
following
> link:
>
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
gather
> > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
> > commentaries, of course).
> > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of the
> > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor period -
> > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale. Thomas
the
> > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel held
> there
> > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind Katy's
> point
> > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting information,
> not
> > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this story
are
> > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having it
done
> > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls down
> on
> > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never mind
that
> > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
> > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until 1603.
> >
> > You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies. I
got
> > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
arrived
> at
> > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same bio
> > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and an
> > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both be
> true.
> > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been esquire
> > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the Body.
> The
> > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth.
Henry
> > did create a number of these just before his coronation, and I
have
> > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after the
> battle
> > of Stoke two years later.
> > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography)?
> > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty reliable
> since
> > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> historians
> > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a
> website
> > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published primary
> > sources for that period for finding references to individuals are
> the
> > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
> > separate series).
> > For unpublished sources the English National Archives website -
> > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
Archives
> > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> (downloadable
> > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
> > documents online section includes wills proved at the archbishop
of
> > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search for
> Wyatt
> > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find
exact
> > matches); there are several for the early 16th century, including
> Sir
> > Henry's.
> > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
> > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website has
an
> > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
subscription -
> > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or
email
> > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills proved
> at
> > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an online
> > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills tend
not
> > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> >
> > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue entries
> > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from the
> > south of England. If you find a document you really think you
need
> a
> > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents when
you
> > get them!
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
in
> > be? I have
> > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> example
> > the
> > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington.
This
> is
> > a false
> > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire. His
> > children were
> > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who
> > married
> > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor
born
> > in 1502
> > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not all
of
> > his
> > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry
VII.
> > Very
> > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died in
> > childbirth
> > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
terribly
> > sorry about
> > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in
the
> > reigns of
> > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too
> would
> > have been
> > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
would
> > have
> > > supported these kings.
> > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
> > Norfolk. He
> > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was
the
> > Earl of
> > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House of
> > Tudors and
> > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story
had
> > it that he
> > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate.
Again
> I
> > am sorry
> > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
mother
> is
> > one of
> > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The
> Poet"
> > Wiatt. I
> > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > Le
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript" cannot
be
> > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor
FOUR
> > > Times?
> > >
> > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth stand-
in
> on
> > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam
Bam;
> > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue in
> > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two
terms,
> > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4
and
> he
> > > was only elected three times.
> > >
> > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do bring
you
> > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> characteristic
> > is
> > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a
cat
> who
> > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a
daily
> > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
actually
> got
> > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still think
it
> > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when cats
do
> > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be instinct.
> > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
> > >
> > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend
> about
> > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
throughout
> > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in the
> Henry
> > > Wyatt legend.
> > >
> > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to
wear.
> > > These are glossed in the online article I read as something
used
> to
> > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our
> writer's
> > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of
> torture
> > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > >
> > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal prerogative,
had
> > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors. Far
> from
> > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel weapons
in
> > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice during
is
> > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > >
> > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most favoured
by
> > the
> > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for
> those
> > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by his
> > wrists
> > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved and
the
> > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
> > longer."
> > >
> > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all
this
> > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or Jacobean
> > > anachronism.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> obviously
> > > very
> > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even
if
> > > it's
> > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to
be
> > > > addressed.
> > > >
> > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were
> put
> > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
> > could
> > > get
> > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the
> writing
> > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> > > Richard
> > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are
just
> > > one or
> > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for
what
> > > were
> > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era.
My
> > > guess
> > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> unsafe
> > to
> > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
> > himself.
> > > >
> > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> > > Elizabethan
> > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
heroic
> > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out
by
> the
> > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of
the
> > > Channel
> > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> > > century a
> > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > governor,
> > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by
him
> > > and
> > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In
> this
> > > case
> > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant
> wife,
> > > who
> > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> > > hours
> > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> > > looked
> > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> > > without
> > > > success.
> > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> > > Countess
> > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard
III
> at
> > > his
> > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it
> when
> > > she
> > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard
III.
> > > >
> > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
pure
> > folk
> > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> > > existed
> > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
true.
> > Dick
> > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice
> mayor
> > of
> > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
> > simple
> > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but
I've
> > > had a
> > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry
VII's
> > > reign
> > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who
took
> > > part
> > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention
of
> > > Henry
> > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> > > parliament,
> > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > >
> > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > individual,
> > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> > > important
> > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
things
> to
> > > do
> > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> anyway
> > he
> > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't
> even
> > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > parliament
> > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> > > petition
> > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
experienced
> > had
> > > he
> > > > been thought to be a key player with serious information.
This
> > > man
> > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in
> the
> > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
> > Friday
> > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
arrested
> at
> > > his
> > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > >
> > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord
> king
> > > in
> > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England
> being
> > > in
> > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
esquire,
> in
> > > > these words:
> > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> present
> > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> > > discreet
> > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
year
> of
> > > the
> > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> > > seized
> > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and
at
> > > the
> > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right
> king
> > of
> > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> England,
> > > and
> > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> > > Tower of
> > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
irons
> and
> > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for
his
> > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
Tower
> > > until
> > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> likely
> > to
> > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover,
the
> > > said
> > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced
and
> > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and
also
> > > the
> > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he
paid
> > > the
> > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
marks.
> And
> > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
1,000
> > > marks
> > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king,
by
> > > their
> > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of
Dt
> > > Mary
> > > > Overy.
> > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
> > tactic
> > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > threatened,
> > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to
his
> > own
> > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
demonstrate
> > > that he
> > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could
> get
> > a
> > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have
been
> > his
> > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of
> course
> > > was
> > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a
> plot
> > to
> > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> > > others,
> > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
harder
> > > time of
> > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not
> have
> > > been
> > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear List
> > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > doing
> > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > > > interested in
> > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> William,
> > > and
> > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York.
> Some
> > > of
> > > > the
> > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> great.
> > If
> > > the
> > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> question
> > > it.
> > > > The
> > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
aspects
> of
> > > > their lives
> > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same
> time
> > > as
> > > > Richard
> > > > > III.
> > > > > Le
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > To: <>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
(after
> > going
> > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can
talk
> > > about
> > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> Richard
> > of
> > > > > torture.
> > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > > > discuss
> > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > > > read
> > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm
just
> > > about
> > > > to
> > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
weeks
> > ago
> > > and
> > > > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore.
There
> > > were
> > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
store
> had
> > > to
> > > > get
> > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
talk!
> > > What do
> > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> Anthony
> > > > Woodville?
> > > > >
> > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > Janet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>

Could this be the Bruys you were talking about, Stephen?

National Archives aatalogue description of C 1/96/22 (dating from
1486-93):
"Thomas Hansard, knight, and Thomasyn, his wife, and Roger
Touneshend, esquire, and Amy, his wife. v. Elizabeth, second wife of
Sir Thomas Brewes, deceased.: The manors of Wetyngham, Witnesham,
Haston, and Akenham; and the manor of Stynton, settled in tail on
William, son of the said Sir Thomas by his first wife, and father of
the said Thomasyn and Amy; and detention of deeds.: Suffolk, Norfolk."

They have the spelling Brews in descrptions of other docs in
connection with Wenham. Anyway, I would suggest that, like at least
50% of the population then, Bruys of Wenham married more than once
and Jane and Elizabeth would have been two separate ladies.

Marie


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> interesting the wife's name is "jane", but documents prove she was
elizabeth.
>
> it would seem that during this era, jane could be a common
alternative/pet name for elizabeths. i.e. elizabeth lambert m.
william shore, but was known as jane shore.
>
> if i correctly recall patsy is a pet name for martha, and there
seems to be no rhyme nor reason for these names to link to each other.
>
> i can see molly coming from mary, and polly too, as it rhymes
with molly.
>
> i can see jane/joan/joanne. but like martha/patsy, jane/elizabeth
just doesn't seem to go together.
>
> this info causes me to think, i should have a another look
at "missing" janes and elizabeths in my research and see if i can
find the records under the alternative name.
>
> i have several elizabeth unknown married mr. so'n'so. perhaps i
should be looking for jane unknown married....
>
> thanks for sharing this possibility.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> The original idea that inspired the legend in the Wyatt
Manuscript?
>
> Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham, now
> dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the old
> manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.
>
> This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys family
> (descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was a
> member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell out
> with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
> Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing
further
> north.
>
> He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth and
was
> soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the
army
> of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII did
> not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to provide
Sir
> Gilbert with food.
>
> In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys nephew
> eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will you
> give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to you!").
>
> Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane although
> documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass
leave
> us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two
different
> wives.
>
> PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham Market
> next year, we expect to be organising a day out.
>
> --- In , dances_with_spaniels
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a
16th
> > century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
> following
> > link:
> >
> > http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
> gather
> > > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
> > > commentaries, of course).
> > > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of the
> > > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor period -

> > > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale. Thomas
> the
> > > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel held
> > there
> > > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind Katy's
> > point
> > > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting
information,
> > not
> > > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this story
> are
> > > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having it
> done
> > > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls
down
> > on
> > > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never mind
> that
> > > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
> > > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until 1603.
> > >
> > > You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies. I
> got
> > > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
> arrived
> > at
> > > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same bio
> > > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and an
> > > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both be
> > true.
> > > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been
esquire
> > > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the
Body.
> > The
> > > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth.
> Henry
> > > did create a number of these just before his coronation, and I
> have
> > > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after the
> > battle
> > > of Stoke two years later.
> > > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
> Biography)?
> > > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty reliable
> > since
> > > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> > historians
> > > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a
> > website
> > > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published primary
> > > sources for that period for finding references to individuals
are
> > the
> > > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
> > > separate series).
> > > For unpublished sources the English National Archives website -
> > > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
> Archives
> > > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> > (downloadable
> > > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
> > > documents online section includes wills proved at the
archbishop
> of
> > > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search for
> > Wyatt
> > > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find
> exact
> > > matches); there are several for the early 16th century,
including
> > Sir
> > > Henry's.
> > > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
> > > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website has
> an
> > > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
> subscription -
> > > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or
> email
> > > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills
proved
> > at
> > > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an
online
> > > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills tend
> not
> > > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> > >
> > > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue
entries
> > > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from
the
> > > south of England. If you find a document you really think you
> need
> > a
> > > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents when
> you
> > > get them!
> > >
> > > Good luck,
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
> in
> > > be? I have
> > > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> > example
> > > the
> > > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington.
> This
> > is
> > > a false
> > > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire.
His
> > > children were
> > > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt who
> > > married
> > > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my ancestor
> born
> > > in 1502
> > > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not
all
> of
> > > his
> > > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of Henry
> VII.
> > > Very
> > > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died
in
> > > childbirth
> > > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
> terribly
> > > sorry about
> > > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living in
> the
> > > reigns of
> > > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he too
> > would
> > > have been
> > > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
> would
> > > have
> > > > supported these kings.
> > > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
> > > Norfolk. He
> > > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards was
> the
> > > Earl of
> > > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House
of
> > > Tudors and
> > > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One story
> had
> > > it that he
> > > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate.
> Again
> > I
> > > am sorry
> > > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
> mother
> > is
> > > one of
> > > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son Thomas "The
> > Poet"
> > > Wiatt. I
> > > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > > Le
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > > To: <>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript"
cannot
> be
> > > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord Mayor
> FOUR
> > > > Times?
> > > >
> > > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth
stand-
> in
> > on
> > > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor Adam
> Bam;
> > > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to continue
in
> > > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two
> terms,
> > > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> > > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than 4
> and
> > he
> > > > was only elected three times.
> > > >
> > > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do
bring
> you
> > > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> > characteristic
> > > is
> > > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet a
> cat
> > who
> > > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on a
> daily
> > > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
> actually
> > got
> > > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still
think
> it
> > > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when
cats
> do
> > > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so the
> > > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be
instinct.
> > > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily sparrow.
> > > >
> > > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a legend
> > about
> > > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> > > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
> throughout
> > > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in
the
> > Henry
> > > > Wyatt legend.
> > > >
> > > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced to
> wear.
> > > > These are glossed in the online article I read as something
> used
> > to
> > > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our
> > writer's
> > > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form of
> > torture
> > > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from Antonia
> > > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > > >
> > > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal
prerogative,
> had
> > > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors.
Far
> > from
> > > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel
weapons
> in
> > > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> > > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice
during
> is
> > > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > > >
> > > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most
favoured
> by
> > > the
> > > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate for
> > those
> > > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by
his
> > > wrists
> > > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be gradually
> > > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved
and
> the
> > > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours, sometimes
> > > longer."
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think all
> this
> > > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or
Jacobean
> > > > anachronism.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> > obviously
> > > > very
> > > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it. Even
> if
> > > > it's
> > > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs to
> be
> > > > > addressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers were
> > put
> > > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If you
> > > could
> > > > get
> > > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the
> > writing
> > > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later than
> > > > Richard
> > > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are
> just
> > > > one or
> > > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for
> what
> > > > were
> > > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later era.
> My
> > > > guess
> > > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time the
> > > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> > unsafe
> > > to
> > > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
> > > himself.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> > > > Elizabethan
> > > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
> heroic
> > > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out
> by
> > the
> > > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of
> the
> > > > Channel
> > > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late 16th
> > > > century a
> > > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > > governor,
> > > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned by
> him
> > > > and
> > > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat. In
> > this
> > > > case
> > > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-pregnant
> > wife,
> > > > who
> > > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England only
> > > > hours
> > > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King. I've
> > > > looked
> > > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon, but
> > > > without
> > > > > success.
> > > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-old
> > > > Countess
> > > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard
> III
> > at
> > > > his
> > > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had it
> > when
> > > > she
> > > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard
> III.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
> pure
> > > folk
> > > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a person
> > > > existed
> > > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
> true.
> > > Dick
> > > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice
> > mayor
> > > of
> > > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't a
> > > simple
> > > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but
> I've
> > > > had a
> > > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and the
> > > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry
> VII's
> > > > reign
> > > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who
> took
> > > > part
> > > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single mention
> of
> > > > Henry
> > > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> > > > parliament,
> > > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > > individual,
> > > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> > > > important
> > > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
> things
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> > anyway
> > > he
> > > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and wasn't
> > even
> > > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > > parliament
> > > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> > > > petition
> > > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
> experienced
> > > had
> > > > he
> > > > > been thought to be a key player with serious information.
> This
> > > > man
> > > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved in
> > the
> > > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower on
> > > Friday
> > > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
> arrested
> > at
> > > > his
> > > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord
> > king
> > > > in
> > > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England
> > being
> > > > in
> > > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
> esquire,
> > in
> > > > > these words:
> > > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> > present
> > > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your
> > > > discreet
> > > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
> year
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly
> > > > seized
> > > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and
> at
> > > > the
> > > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right
> > king
> > > of
> > > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> > England,
> > > > and
> > > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the
> > > > Tower of
> > > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
> irons
> > and
> > > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for
> his
> > > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
> Tower
> > > > until
> > > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> > likely
> > > to
> > > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover,
> the
> > > > said
> > > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced
> and
> > > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and
> also
> > > > the
> > > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he
> paid
> > > > the
> > > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
> marks.
> > And
> > > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
> 1,000
> > > > marks
> > > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king,
> by
> > > > their
> > > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior of
> Dt
> > > > Mary
> > > > > Overy.
> > > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the normal
> > > tactic
> > > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > > threatened,
> > > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to
> his
> > > own
> > > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
> demonstrate
> > > > that he
> > > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he could
> > get
> > > a
> > > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have
> been
> > > his
> > > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of
> > course
> > > > was
> > > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a
> > plot
> > > to
> > > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and possibly
> > > > others,
> > > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
> harder
> > > > time of
> > > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might not
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear List
> > > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > > doing
> > > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am merely
> > > > > interested in
> > > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> > William,
> > > > and
> > > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or York.
> > Some
> > > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> > great.
> > > If
> > > > the
> > > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> > question
> > > > it.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
> aspects
> > of
> > > > > their lives
> > > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the same
> > time
> > > > as
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > III.
> > > > > > Le
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
> (after
> > > going
> > > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can
> talk
> > > > about
> > > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> > Richard
> > > of
> > > > > > torture.
> > > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site to
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has anyone
> > > > > read
> > > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm
> just
> > > > about
> > > > > to
> > > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
> weeks
> > > ago
> > > > and
> > > > > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore.
> There
> > > > were
> > > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
> store
> > had
> > > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
> talk!
> > > > What do
> > > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> > Anthony
> > > > > Woodville?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > > Janet
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Could this be the Bruys you were talking about, Stephen?
>
> National Archives aatalogue description of C 1/96/22 (dating from
> 1486-93):
> "Thomas Hansard, knight, and Thomasyn, his wife, and Roger
> Touneshend, esquire, and Amy, his wife. v. Elizabeth, second wife
of
> Sir Thomas Brewes, deceased.: The manors of Wetyngham, Witnesham,
> Haston, and Akenham; and the manor of Stynton, settled in tail on
> William, son of the said Sir Thomas by his first wife, and father
of
> the said Thomasyn and Amy; and detention of deeds.: Suffolk,
Norfolk."
>
> They have the spelling Brews in descrptions of other docs in
> connection with Wenham. Anyway, I would suggest that, like at least
> 50% of the population then, Bruys of Wenham married more than once
> and Jane and Elizabeth would have been two separate ladies.
>
> Marie
>
Right man, Marie but they are the same wife as the heraldic evidence
in the church attests. Our group includes at least one heraldry
specialist.

> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > interesting the wife's name is "jane", but documents prove she
was
> elizabeth.
> >
> > it would seem that during this era, jane could be a common
> alternative/pet name for elizabeths. i.e. elizabeth lambert m.
> william shore, but was known as jane shore.
> >
> > if i correctly recall patsy is a pet name for martha, and there
> seems to be no rhyme nor reason for these names to link to each
other.
> >
> > i can see molly coming from mary, and polly too, as it rhymes
> with molly.
> >
> > i can see jane/joan/joanne. but like martha/patsy,
jane/elizabeth
> just doesn't seem to go together.
> >
> > this info causes me to think, i should have a another look
> at "missing" janes and elizabeths in my research and see if i can
> find the records under the alternative name.
> >
> > i have several elizabeth unknown married mr. so'n'so. perhaps i
> should be looking for jane unknown married....
> >
> > thanks for sharing this possibility.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > The original idea that inspired the legend in the Wyatt
> Manuscript?
> >
> > Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham,
now
> > dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the old
> > manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.
> >
> > This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys
family
> > (descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was a
> > member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell
out
> > with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
> > Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing
> further
> > north.
> >
> > He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth and
> was
> > soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the
> army
> > of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII
did
> > not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to provide
> Sir
> > Gilbert with food.
> >
> > In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys
nephew
> > eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will
you
> > give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to you!").
> >
> > Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane
although
> > documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass
> leave
> > us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two
> different
> > wives.
> >
> > PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham
Market
> > next year, we expect to be organising a day out.
> >
> > --- In ,
dances_with_spaniels
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a
> 16th
> > > century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
> > following
> > > link:
> > >
> > > http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
> > gather
> > > > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with suitable
> > > > commentaries, of course).
> > > > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of
the
> > > > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor
period -
>
> > > > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale.
Thomas
> > the
> > > > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel
held
> > > there
> > > > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind
Katy's
> > > point
> > > > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting
> information,
> > > not
> > > > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this
story
> > are
> > > > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having
it
> > done
> > > > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that falls
> down
> > > on
> > > > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never
mind
> > that
> > > > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > > > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere in
> > > > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until
1603.
> > > >
> > > > You're definitely right to suspect these online biographies.
I
> > got
> > > > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
> > arrived
> > > at
> > > > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same
bio
> > > > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth and
an
> > > > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot both
be
> > > true.
> > > > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been
> esquire
> > > > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the
> Body.
> > > The
> > > > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after Bosworth.
> > Henry
> > > > did create a number of these just before his coronation, and
I
> > have
> > > > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after
the
> > > battle
> > > > of Stoke two years later.
> > > > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
> > Biography)?
> > > > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty
reliable
> > > since
> > > > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> > > historians
> > > > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find a
> > > website
> > > > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published
primary
> > > > sources for that period for finding references to individuals
> are
> > > the
> > > > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls (three
> > > > separate series).
> > > > For unpublished sources the English National Archives
website -
> > > > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
> > Archives
> > > > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> > > (downloadable
> > > > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings). The
> > > > documents online section includes wills proved at the
> archbishop
> > of
> > > > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search
for
> > > Wyatt
> > > > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only find
> > exact
> > > > matches); there are several for the early 16th century,
> including
> > > Sir
> > > > Henry's.
> > > > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by the
> > > > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website
has
> > an
> > > > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
> > subscription -
> > > > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write or
> > email
> > > > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > > > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills
> proved
> > > at
> > > > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an
> online
> > > > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills
tend
> > not
> > > > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> > > >
> > > > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue
> entries
> > > > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but from
> the
> > > > south of England. If you find a document you really think you
> > need
> > > a
> > > > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > > > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents
when
> > you
> > > > get them!
> > > >
> > > > Good luck,
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
> > in
> > > > be? I have
> > > > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> > > example
> > > > the
> > > > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at Allington.
> > This
> > > is
> > > > a false
> > > > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in Yorkshire.
> His
> > > > children were
> > > > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt
who
> > > > married
> > > > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my
ancestor
> > born
> > > > in 1502
> > > > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if not
> all
> > of
> > > > his
> > > > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of
Henry
> > VII.
> > > > Very
> > > > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who died
> in
> > > > childbirth
> > > > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
> > terribly
> > > > sorry about
> > > > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living
in
> > the
> > > > reigns of
> > > > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he
too
> > > would
> > > > have been
> > > > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
> > would
> > > > have
> > > > > supported these kings.
> > > > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl of
> > > > Norfolk. He
> > > > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards
was
> > the
> > > > Earl of
> > > > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the House
> of
> > > > Tudors and
> > > > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One
story
> > had
> > > > it that he
> > > > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and Plate.
> > Again
> > > I
> > > > am sorry
> > > > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
> > mother
> > > is
> > > > one of
> > > > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son
Thomas "The
> > > Poet"
> > > > Wiatt. I
> > > > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > > > Le
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > > > To: <>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen
Lark"
> > > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript"
> cannot
> > be
> > > > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord
Mayor
> > FOUR
> > > > > Times?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth
> stand-
> > in
> > > on
> > > > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor
Adam
> > Bam;
> > > > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to
continue
> in
> > > > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as two
> > terms,
> > > > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one. I
> > > > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3 than
4
> > and
> > > he
> > > > > was only elected three times.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do
> bring
> > you
> > > > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> > > characteristic
> > > > is
> > > > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to meet
a
> > cat
> > > who
> > > > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything on
a
> > daily
> > > > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
> > actually
> > > got
> > > > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still
> think
> > it
> > > > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when
> cats
> > do
> > > > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so
the
> > > > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be
> instinct.
> > > > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily
sparrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a
legend
> > > about
> > > > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat Trixie
> > > > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
> > throughout
> > > > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient in
> the
> > > Henry
> > > > > Wyatt legend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced
to
> > wear.
> > > > > These are glossed in the online article I read as something
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest our
> > > writer's
> > > > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form
of
> > > torture
> > > > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from
Antonia
> > > > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > > > >
> > > > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal
> prerogative,
> > had
> > > > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the Tudors.
> Far
> > > from
> > > > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel
> weapons
> > in
> > > > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who had
> > > > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice
> during
> > is
> > > > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > > > >
> > > > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most
> favoured
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate
for
> > > those
> > > > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up by
> his
> > > > wrists
> > > > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be
gradually
> > > > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be reomved
> and
> > the
> > > > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours,
sometimes
> > > > longer."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think
all
> > this
> > > > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or
> Jacobean
> > > > > anachronism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt
et.al.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> > > obviously
> > > > > very
> > > > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it.
Even
> > if
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it needs
to
> > be
> > > > > > addressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers
were
> > > put
> > > > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If
you
> > > > could
> > > > > get
> > > > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by the
> > > writing
> > > > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later
than
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there are
> > just
> > > > > one or
> > > > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation for
> > what
> > > > > were
> > > > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later
era.
> > My
> > > > > guess
> > > > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time
the
> > > > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> > > unsafe
> > > > to
> > > > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt of
> > > > himself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly from
> > > > > Elizabethan
> > > > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
> > heroic
> > > > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne out
> > by
> > > the
> > > > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets of
> > the
> > > > > Channel
> > > > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late
16th
> > > > > century a
> > > > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > > > governor,
> > > > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned
by
> > him
> > > > > and
> > > > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat.
In
> > > this
> > > > > case
> > > > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-
pregnant
> > > wife,
> > > > > who
> > > > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England
only
> > > > > hours
> > > > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King.
I've
> > > > > looked
> > > > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon,
but
> > > > > without
> > > > > > success.
> > > > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-
old
> > > > > Countess
> > > > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future Richard
> > III
> > > at
> > > > > his
> > > > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had
it
> > > when
> > > > > she
> > > > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with Richard
> > III.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
> > pure
> > > > folk
> > > > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a
person
> > > > > existed
> > > > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
> > true.
> > > > Dick
> > > > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was thrice
> > > mayor
> > > > of
> > > > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he wasn't
a
> > > > simple
> > > > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever cat.
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me, but
> > I've
> > > > > had a
> > > > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion, and
the
> > > > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for Henry
> > VII's
> > > > > reign
> > > > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans who
> > took
> > > > > part
> > > > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single
mention
> > of
> > > > > Henry
> > > > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard III's
> > > > > parliament,
> > > > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > > > individual,
> > > > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far more
> > > > > important
> > > > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
> > things
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> > > anyway
> > > > he
> > > > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and
wasn't
> > > even
> > > > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > > > parliament
> > > > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and his
> > > > > petition
> > > > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
> > experienced
> > > > had
> > > > > he
> > > > > > been thought to be a key player with serious information.
> > This
> > > > > man
> > > > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been involved
in
> > > the
> > > > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower
on
> > > > Friday
> > > > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
> > arrested
> > > at
> > > > > his
> > > > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid
lord
> > > king
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of
England
> > > being
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
> > esquire,
> > > in
> > > > > > these words:
> > > > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> > > present
> > > > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to
your
> > > > > discreet
> > > > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
> > year
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was
suddenly
> > > > > seized
> > > > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants
and
> > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right
> > > king
> > > > of
> > > > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> > > England,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to
the
> > > > > Tower of
> > > > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
> > irons
> > > and
> > > > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for
> > his
> > > > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
> > Tower
> > > > > until
> > > > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> > > likely
> > > > to
> > > > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And
moreover,
> > the
> > > > > said
> > > > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily
menaced
> > and
> > > > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and
> > also
> > > > > the
> > > > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he
> > paid
> > > > > the
> > > > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
> > marks.
> > > And
> > > > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
> > 1,000
> > > > > marks
> > > > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right
king,
> > by
> > > > > their
> > > > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior
of
> > Dt
> > > > > Mary
> > > > > > Overy.
> > > > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the
normal
> > > > tactic
> > > > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > > > threatened,
> > > > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according to
> > his
> > > > own
> > > > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
> > demonstrate
> > > > > that he
> > > > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he
could
> > > get
> > > > a
> > > > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would have
> > been
> > > > his
> > > > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks of
> > > course
> > > > > was
> > > > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in a
> > > plot
> > > > to
> > > > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and
possibly
> > > > > others,
> > > > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
> > harder
> > > > > time of
> > > > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might
not
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Le
Bateman"
> > > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear List
> > > > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am
merely
> > > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> > > William,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or
York.
> > > Some
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> > > great.
> > > > If
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> > > question
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
> > aspects
> > > of
> > > > > > their lives
> > > > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the
same
> > > time
> > > > > as
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > III.
> > > > > > > Le
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt et.al.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
> > (after
> > > > going
> > > > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we can
> > talk
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> > > Richard
> > > > of
> > > > > > > torture.
> > > > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own site
to
> > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has
anyone
> > > > > > read
> > > > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I asm
> > just
> > > > > about
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
> > weeks
> > > > ago
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > got a very good response from people in the bookstore.
> > There
> > > > > were
> > > > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
> > store
> > > had
> > > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
> > talk!
> > > > > What do
> > > > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> > > Anthony
> > > > > > Woodville?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > > > Janet
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Okay, Stepehen, point taken. But I see from the genealogies that Sir
Thomas's first wife was Joan (Calthorpe). From what you say he had
Great Wenham in right of his second wife, Elizabeth Debenham. So it
makes sense that it would be Elizabeth who is buried there, not Joan,
and that would explain the heraldry. But I think it is too much of a
coincidence that he did have a wife Joan as well as the Elizabeth
whose heraldry appears in the church. Surely what we have is an
inscription for one and the heraldry relating to the other, not the
same wife under different names.
The story of the burials is evidently not straightforward because all
the internet sources are agreed that Sir Thomas was buried not at
Great Wenham but in Woodbridge Priory, of which his family had been
patrons for generations.
Is it possible that Sir Thomas was buried at Woodbridge Priory with
his first wife Joan, whilst Elizabeth was buried at her family home
of Great Wenham, but after the Dissolution Sir Thomas' tomb was
rescued his descendants (by his second marriage) and re-erected at
Great Wenham, with Elizabeth's heraldry being added to it? Only a
suggestion.

Marie



--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Could this be the Bruys you were talking about, Stephen?
> >
> > National Archives aatalogue description of C 1/96/22 (dating from
> > 1486-93):
> > "Thomas Hansard, knight, and Thomasyn, his wife, and Roger
> > Touneshend, esquire, and Amy, his wife. v. Elizabeth, second wife
> of
> > Sir Thomas Brewes, deceased.: The manors of Wetyngham, Witnesham,
> > Haston, and Akenham; and the manor of Stynton, settled in tail on
> > William, son of the said Sir Thomas by his first wife, and father
> of
> > the said Thomasyn and Amy; and detention of deeds.: Suffolk,
> Norfolk."
> >
> > They have the spelling Brews in descrptions of other docs in
> > connection with Wenham. Anyway, I would suggest that, like at
least
> > 50% of the population then, Bruys of Wenham married more than
once
> > and Jane and Elizabeth would have been two separate ladies.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> Right man, Marie but they are the same wife as the heraldic
evidence
> in the church attests. Our group includes at least one heraldry
> specialist.
>
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > interesting the wife's name is "jane", but documents prove she
> was
> > elizabeth.
> > >
> > > it would seem that during this era, jane could be a common
> > alternative/pet name for elizabeths. i.e. elizabeth lambert m.
> > william shore, but was known as jane shore.
> > >
> > > if i correctly recall patsy is a pet name for martha, and
there
> > seems to be no rhyme nor reason for these names to link to each
> other.
> > >
> > > i can see molly coming from mary, and polly too, as it rhymes
> > with molly.
> > >
> > > i can see jane/joan/joanne. but like martha/patsy,
> jane/elizabeth
> > just doesn't seem to go together.
> > >
> > > this info causes me to think, i should have a another look
> > at "missing" janes and elizabeths in my research and see if i can
> > find the records under the alternative name.
> > >
> > > i have several elizabeth unknown married mr. so'n'so. perhaps
i
> > should be looking for jane unknown married....
> > >
> > > thanks for sharing this possibility.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > The original idea that inspired the legend in the
Wyatt
> > Manuscript?
> > >
> > > Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham,
> now
> > > dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the
old
> > > manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.
> > >
> > > This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys
> family
> > > (descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was
a
> > > member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell
> out
> > > with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
> > > Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing
> > further
> > > north.
> > >
> > > He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth
and
> > was
> > > soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the
> > army
> > > of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII
> did
> > > not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to
provide
> > Sir
> > > Gilbert with food.
> > >
> > > In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys
> nephew
> > > eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will
> you
> > > give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to
you!").
> > >
> > > Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane
> although
> > > documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass
> > leave
> > > us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two
> > different
> > > wives.
> > >
> > > PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham
> Market
> > > next year, we expect to be organising a day out.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> dances_with_spaniels
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a
> > 16th
> > > > century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
> > > following
> > > > link:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
> > > gather
> > > > > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with
suitable
> > > > > commentaries, of course).
> > > > > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of
> the
> > > > > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor
> period -
> >
> > > > > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale.
> Thomas
> > > the
> > > > > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel
> held
> > > > there
> > > > > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind
> Katy's
> > > > point
> > > > > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting
> > information,
> > > > not
> > > > > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this
> story
> > > are
> > > > > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having
> it
> > > done
> > > > > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that
falls
> > down
> > > > on
> > > > > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never
> mind
> > > that
> > > > > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > > > > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere
in
> > > > > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until
> 1603.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're definitely right to suspect these online
biographies.
> I
> > > got
> > > > > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
> > > arrived
> > > > at
> > > > > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same
> bio
> > > > > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth
and
> an
> > > > > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot
both
> be
> > > > true.
> > > > > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been
> > esquire
> > > > > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the
> > Body.
> > > > The
> > > > > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after
Bosworth.
> > > Henry
> > > > > did create a number of these just before his coronation,
and
> I
> > > have
> > > > > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after
> the
> > > > battle
> > > > > of Stoke two years later.
> > > > > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
> > > Biography)?
> > > > > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty
> reliable
> > > > since
> > > > > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> > > > historians
> > > > > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find
a
> > > > website
> > > > > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published
> primary
> > > > > sources for that period for finding references to
individuals
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls
(three
> > > > > separate series).
> > > > > For unpublished sources the English National Archives
> website -
> > > > > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
> > > Archives
> > > > > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> > > > (downloadable
> > > > > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings).
The
> > > > > documents online section includes wills proved at the
> > archbishop
> > > of
> > > > > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search
> for
> > > > Wyatt
> > > > > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only
find
> > > exact
> > > > > matches); there are several for the early 16th century,
> > including
> > > > Sir
> > > > > Henry's.
> > > > > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by
the
> > > > > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website
> has
> > > an
> > > > > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
> > > subscription -
> > > > > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write
or
> > > email
> > > > > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > > > > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills
> > proved
> > > > at
> > > > > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an
> > online
> > > > > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills
> tend
> > > not
> > > > > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> > > > >
> > > > > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue
> > entries
> > > > > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but
from
> > the
> > > > > south of England. If you find a document you really think
you
> > > need
> > > > a
> > > > > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > > > > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents
> when
> > > you
> > > > > get them!
> > > > >
> > > > > Good luck,
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
> > > in
> > > > > be? I have
> > > > > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> > > > example
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at
Allington.
> > > This
> > > > is
> > > > > a false
> > > > > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in
Yorkshire.
> > His
> > > > > children were
> > > > > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt
> who
> > > > > married
> > > > > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my
> ancestor
> > > born
> > > > > in 1502
> > > > > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if
not
> > all
> > > of
> > > > > his
> > > > > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of
> Henry
> > > VII.
> > > > > Very
> > > > > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who
died
> > in
> > > > > childbirth
> > > > > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
> > > terribly
> > > > > sorry about
> > > > > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living
> in
> > > the
> > > > > reigns of
> > > > > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he
> too
> > > > would
> > > > > have been
> > > > > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > > > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
> > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > supported these kings.
> > > > > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl
of
> > > > > Norfolk. He
> > > > > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards
> was
> > > the
> > > > > Earl of
> > > > > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the
House
> > of
> > > > > Tudors and
> > > > > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One
> story
> > > had
> > > > > it that he
> > > > > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and
Plate.
> > > Again
> > > > I
> > > > > am sorry
> > > > > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
> > > mother
> > > > is
> > > > > one of
> > > > > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son
> Thomas "The
> > > > Poet"
> > > > > Wiatt. I
> > > > > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > > > > Le
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt
et.al.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Stephen
> Lark"
> > > > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript"
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord
> Mayor
> > > FOUR
> > > > > > Times?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth
> > stand-
> > > in
> > > > on
> > > > > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor
> Adam
> > > Bam;
> > > > > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to
> continue
> > in
> > > > > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as
two
> > > terms,
> > > > > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one.
I
> > > > > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3
than
> 4
> > > and
> > > > he
> > > > > > was only elected three times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do
> > bring
> > > you
> > > > > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> > > > characteristic
> > > > > is
> > > > > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to
meet
> a
> > > cat
> > > > who
> > > > > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything
on
> a
> > > daily
> > > > > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
> > > actually
> > > > got
> > > > > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still
> > think
> > > it
> > > > > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when
> > cats
> > > do
> > > > > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so
> the
> > > > > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be
> > instinct.
> > > > > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily
> sparrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a
> legend
> > > > about
> > > > > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat
Trixie
> > > > > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
> > > throughout
> > > > > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient
in
> > the
> > > > Henry
> > > > > > Wyatt legend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced
> to
> > > wear.
> > > > > > These are glossed in the online article I read as
something
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest
our
> > > > writer's
> > > > > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > > > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form
> of
> > > > torture
> > > > > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from
> Antonia
> > > > > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal
> > prerogative,
> > > had
> > > > > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the
Tudors.
> > Far
> > > > from
> > > > > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel
> > weapons
> > > in
> > > > > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who
had
> > > > > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice
> > during
> > > is
> > > > > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most
> > favoured
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate
> for
> > > > those
> > > > > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up
by
> > his
> > > > > wrists
> > > > > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be
> gradually
> > > > > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be
reomved
> > and
> > > the
> > > > > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours,
> sometimes
> > > > > longer."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think
> all
> > > this
> > > > > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or
> > Jacobean
> > > > > > anachronism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt
> et.al.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it.
> Even
> > > if
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it
needs
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > addressed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers
> were
> > > > put
> > > > > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If
> you
> > > > > could
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by
the
> > > > writing
> > > > > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later
> than
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there
are
> > > just
> > > > > > one or
> > > > > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation
for
> > > what
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later
> era.
> > > My
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time
> the
> > > > > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> > > > unsafe
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt
of
> > > > > himself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly
from
> > > > > > Elizabethan
> > > > > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
> > > heroic
> > > > > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne
out
> > > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets
of
> > > the
> > > > > > Channel
> > > > > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late
> 16th
> > > > > > century a
> > > > > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > > > > governor,
> > > > > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned
> by
> > > him
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat.
> In
> > > > this
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-
> pregnant
> > > > wife,
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England
> only
> > > > > > hours
> > > > > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King.
> I've
> > > > > > looked
> > > > > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon,
> but
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > success.
> > > > > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-
> old
> > > > > > Countess
> > > > > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future
Richard
> > > III
> > > > at
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had
> it
> > > > when
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with
Richard
> > > III.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
> > > pure
> > > > > folk
> > > > > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a
> person
> > > > > > existed
> > > > > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
> > > true.
> > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was
thrice
> > > > mayor
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he
wasn't
> a
> > > > > simple
> > > > > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever
cat.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me,
but
> > > I've
> > > > > > had a
> > > > > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion,
and
> the
> > > > > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for
Henry
> > > VII's
> > > > > > reign
> > > > > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans
who
> > > took
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single
> mention
> > > of
> > > > > > Henry
> > > > > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard
III's
> > > > > > parliament,
> > > > > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > > > > individual,
> > > > > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far
more
> > > > > > important
> > > > > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
> > > things
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> > > > anyway
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and
> wasn't
> > > > even
> > > > > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > > > > parliament
> > > > > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and
his
> > > > > > petition
> > > > > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
> > > experienced
> > > > > had
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > been thought to be a key player with serious
information.
> > > This
> > > > > > man
> > > > > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been
involved
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower
> on
> > > > > Friday
> > > > > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
> > > arrested
> > > > at
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid
> lord
> > > > king
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of
> England
> > > > being
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
> > > esquire,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > these words:
> > > > > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> > > > present
> > > > > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to
> your
> > > > > > discreet
> > > > > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
> > > year
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was
> suddenly
> > > > > > seized
> > > > > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants
> and
> > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by
right
> > > > king
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> > > > England,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there
to
> the
> > > > > > Tower of
> > > > > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
> > > irons
> > > > and
> > > > > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink
for
> > > his
> > > > > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
> > > Tower
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> > > > likely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And
> moreover,
> > > the
> > > > > > said
> > > > > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily
> menaced
> > > and
> > > > > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason
and
> > > also
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless
he
> > > paid
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
> > > marks.
> > > > And
> > > > > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
> > > 1,000
> > > > > > marks
> > > > > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right
> king,
> > > by
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior
> of
> > > Dt
> > > > > > Mary
> > > > > > > Overy.
> > > > > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the
> normal
> > > > > tactic
> > > > > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > > > > threatened,
> > > > > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according
to
> > > his
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
> > > demonstrate
> > > > > > that he
> > > > > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he
> could
> > > > get
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would
have
> > > been
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks
of
> > > > course
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in
a
> > > > plot
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and
> possibly
> > > > > > others,
> > > > > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
> > > harder
> > > > > > time of
> > > > > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might
> not
> > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
> > > > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear List
> > > > > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am
> merely
> > > > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> > > > William,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or
> York.
> > > > Some
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> > > > great.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> > > > question
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
> > > aspects
> > > > of
> > > > > > > their lives
> > > > > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the
> same
> > > > time
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > III.
> > > > > > > > Le
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt
et.al.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
> > > (after
> > > > > going
> > > > > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we
can
> > > talk
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> > > > Richard
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > torture.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own
site
> to
> > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has
> anyone
> > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I
asm
> > > just
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
> > > weeks
> > > > > ago
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > got a very good response from people in the
bookstore.
> > > There
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
> > > store
> > > > had
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
> > > talk!
> > > > > > What do
> > > > > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> > > > Anthony
> > > > > > > Woodville?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > > > > Janet
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

We heard about documents giving Sir Gilbert's sister as Elizabeth. Then we saw the memorial calling Mrs. Bruys Jane but showing the Debenham arms. I have BCC'd this to the group chairman to see what John thinks of it.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt et.al.



Okay, Stepehen, point taken. But I see from the genealogies that Sir
Thomas's first wife was Joan (Calthorpe). From what you say he had
Great Wenham in right of his second wife, Elizabeth Debenham. So it
makes sense that it would be Elizabeth who is buried there, not Joan,
and that would explain the heraldry. But I think it is too much of a
coincidence that he did have a wife Joan as well as the Elizabeth
whose heraldry appears in the church. Surely what we have is an
inscription for one and the heraldry relating to the other, not the
same wife under different names.
The story of the burials is evidently not straightforward because all
the internet sources are agreed that Sir Thomas was buried not at
Great Wenham but in Woodbridge Priory, of which his family had been
patrons for generations.
Is it possible that Sir Thomas was buried at Woodbridge Priory with
his first wife Joan, whilst Elizabeth was buried at her family home
of Great Wenham, but after the Dissolution Sir Thomas' tomb was
rescued his descendants (by his second marriage) and re-erected at
Great Wenham, with Elizabeth's heraldry being added to it? Only a
suggestion.

Marie


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Could this be the Bruys you were talking about, Stephen?
> >
> > National Archives aatalogue description of C 1/96/22 (dating from
> > 1486-93):
> > "Thomas Hansard, knight, and Thomasyn, his wife, and Roger
> > Touneshend, esquire, and Amy, his wife. v. Elizabeth, second wife
> of
> > Sir Thomas Brewes, deceased.: The manors of Wetyngham, Witnesham,
> > Haston, and Akenham; and the manor of Stynton, settled in tail on
> > William, son of the said Sir Thomas by his first wife, and father
> of
> > the said Thomasyn and Amy; and detention of deeds.: Suffolk,
> Norfolk."
> >
> > They have the spelling Brews in descrptions of other docs in
> > connection with Wenham. Anyway, I would suggest that, like at
least
> > 50% of the population then, Bruys of Wenham married more than
once
> > and Jane and Elizabeth would have been two separate ladies.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> Right man, Marie but they are the same wife as the heraldic
evidence
> in the church attests. Our group includes at least one heraldry
> specialist.
>
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > interesting the wife's name is "jane", but documents prove she
> was
> > elizabeth.
> > >
> > > it would seem that during this era, jane could be a common
> > alternative/pet name for elizabeths. i.e. elizabeth lambert m.
> > william shore, but was known as jane shore.
> > >
> > > if i correctly recall patsy is a pet name for martha, and
there
> > seems to be no rhyme nor reason for these names to link to each
> other.
> > >
> > > i can see molly coming from mary, and polly too, as it rhymes
> > with molly.
> > >
> > > i can see jane/joan/joanne. but like martha/patsy,
> jane/elizabeth
> > just doesn't seem to go together.
> > >
> > > this info causes me to think, i should have a another look
> > at "missing" janes and elizabeths in my research and see if i can
> > find the records under the alternative name.
> > >
> > > i have several elizabeth unknown married mr. so'n'so. perhaps
i
> > should be looking for jane unknown married....
> > >
> > > thanks for sharing this possibility.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > The original idea that inspired the legend in the
Wyatt
> > Manuscript?
> > >
> > > Today, the Mid Anglia Group visited the hamlet of Great Wenham,
> now
> > > dwarved by the neighbouring Capel St. Mary. We looked at the
old
> > > manor house but actually toured the - now redundant - church.
> > >
> > > This was the property first of the Debenhams then the Bruys
> family
> > > (descended from a sister of the last Debenham). Sir Gilbert was
a
> > > member of the (last Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk's Council. He fell
> out
> > > with Somerset and joined the Yorkists in exile. In 1470-1, Sir
> > > Gilbert landed at Cromer before returning to sea and landing
> > further
> > > north.
> > >
> > > He served Edward IV and Richard III, was probably at Bosworth
and
> > was
> > > soon attainted. After an apparent reconciliation, he joined the
> > army
> > > of "Perkin Warbeck" and went into sanctuary. Although Henry VII
> did
> > > not force him out as he did with "Perkin", he refused to
provide
> > Sir
> > > Gilbert with food.
> > >
> > > In 1499, he was released but died a year later and his Bruys
> nephew
> > > eventually reversed the attainder for £500. (Translation: "Will
> you
> > > give me back my uncle's property?" "I will sell it back to
you!").
> > >
> > > Bruys' tomb is in the church with his wife's name as Jane
> although
> > > documents give her as Elizabeth. Heraldic evidence on the brass
> > leave
> > > us in no doubt that this is the same woman, not merely two
> > different
> > > wives.
> > >
> > > PS If you are interested in visiting Stowmarket and Needham
> Market
> > > next year, we expect to be organising a day out.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> dances_with_spaniels
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Oxford Dictionary of New Biography's Life of the Day is a
> > 16th
> > > > century Sir Thomas Wyatt available for free viewing at the
> > > following
> > > > link:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2008-03-30
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee, please don't apologise. Someday perhaps someone should
> > > gather
> > > > > all the Wars of the Roses legends into a book (with
suitable
> > > > > commentaries, of course).
> > > > > I suppose one of the things I was hinting at is that one of
> the
> > > > > Wyatts may have been tortured in the Tower in the Tudor
> period -
> >
> > > > > though not in the exaggerated form relayed in this tale.
> Thomas
> > > the
> > > > > poet was definitely in the Tower. Was Thomas Jr the rebel
> held
> > > > there
> > > > > by any chance before his execution? Again, bear in mind
> Katy's
> > > > point
> > > > > that torture was for the state a means of eliciting
> > information,
> > > > not
> > > > > a pastime. I suppose the claims of daily torture in this
> story
> > > are
> > > > > based on the claim that Richard was there and he was having
> it
> > > done
> > > > > for his own psychopathic pleasure. But, as I say, that
falls
> > down
> > > > on
> > > > > the simple grounds that Richard wasn't in the area (never
> mind
> > > that
> > > > > he wasn't actually a psychopath).
> > > > > The tower in question is the Tower of London, not anywhere
in
> > > > > Scotland. Scotland and England weren't even united until
> 1603.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're definitely right to suspect these online
biographies.
> I
> > > got
> > > > > the marriage date of 1502 from one of these - clearly just
> > > arrived
> > > > at
> > > > > by subtracting 1 from the year of Thomas's birth. The same
> bio
> > > > > claimed Henry was created knight banneret after Bosworth
and
> an
> > > > > esquire of the Body in the 1490s. The two things cannot
both
> be
> > > > true.
> > > > > If he was knighted after Bosworth he would not have been
> > esquire
> > > > > thereafter - he would have become one of the knights of the
> > Body.
> > > > The
> > > > > fact is, he wasn't created a knight banneret after
Bosworth.
> > > Henry
> > > > > did create a number of these just before his coronation,
and
> I
> > > have
> > > > > the list. Nor was Wyatt one of the many men knighted after
> the
> > > > battle
> > > > > of Stoke two years later.
> > > > > Have you tried the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National
> > > Biography)?
> > > > > The new version, out only a couple of years, is pretty
> reliable
> > > > since
> > > > > the entries have all been written recently by professional
> > > > historians
> > > > > who are specialists in the period concerned. You might find
a
> > > > website
> > > > > that offers a subscription. Good bog-standard published
> primary
> > > > > sources for that period for finding references to
individuals
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > Calendars of Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls, and Close Rolls
(three
> > > > > separate series).
> > > > > For unpublished sources the English National Archives
> website -
> > > > > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - is very good. The Search the
> > > Archives
> > > > > button on the top bar has options for Documents Online
> > > > (downloadable
> > > > > stuff) and Search the Catalogue (for all their holdings).
The
> > > > > documents online section includes wills proved at the
> > archbishop
> > > of
> > > > > Canterbury's court. If you go into that you can do a search
> for
> > > > Wyatt
> > > > > wills (do try different spelling options as it will only
find
> > > exact
> > > > > matches); there are several for the early 16th century,
> > including
> > > > Sir
> > > > > Henry's.
> > > > > The equivalent wills for the north of England are held by
the
> > > > > Borthwick Institute in York. The www.origins.org.uk website
> has
> > > an
> > > > > index of the medieval ones up to 1500 but you need a
> > > subscription -
> > > > > quite cheap, though, I seem to remember. Or you can write
or
> > > email
> > > > > the Borthwick Institute directly (they also have a website).
> > > > > County Record Offices (which all have websites) have wills
> > proved
> > > > at
> > > > > local level, although sadly only one that I know of has an
> > online
> > > > > index of wills covering the early period (individual wills
> tend
> > > not
> > > > > to be included in the general catalogue indexes).
> > > > >
> > > > > To return to the National Archives, I see their catalogue
> > entries
> > > > > include quite a few mentions of 15th century Wyatts, but
from
> > the
> > > > > south of England. If you find a document you really think
you
> > > need
> > > > a
> > > > > copy of, hit the Shop Online tab on the top bar and proceed.
> > > > > After that it's just a matter of deciphering the documents
> when
> > > you
> > > > > get them!
> > > > >
> > > > > Good luck,
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Le Bateman"
> > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where in Scotland would this tower that Henry was kept
> > > in
> > > > > be? I have
> > > > > > found a number of sites that have many errors on them For
> > > > example
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Tudorplace site states Henry was born in Kent at
Allington.
> > > This
> > > > is
> > > > > a false
> > > > > > statement he was born I believe at Southange in
Yorkshire.
> > His
> > > > > children were
> > > > > > born in Kent after he purchased Allington. Margaret Wiatt
> who
> > > > > married
> > > > > > Anthony Lee I believe was the eldest. Thomas was my
> ancestor
> > > born
> > > > > in 1502
> > > > > > was either the next to last or the last child. Most if
not
> > all
> > > of
> > > > > his
> > > > > > children born to Ann Skinner were born in the reign of
> Henry
> > > VII.
> > > > > Very
> > > > > > little is known about his first wife a Miss Hearn, who
died
> > in
> > > > > childbirth
> > > > > > giving birth to their son John, who died with her. I am
> > > terribly
> > > > > sorry about
> > > > > > the diversion. Henry's father and grandfather were living
> in
> > > the
> > > > > reigns of
> > > > > > Edward IV and Richard III. Henry was born in 1460, so he
> too
> > > > would
> > > > > have been
> > > > > > living at the time of the reigns of these monarchs.
> > > > > > How can I find information on who in Henry's family
> > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > supported these kings.
> > > > > > One thing I wanted to say one site calls Henry The Earl
of
> > > > > Norfolk. He
> > > > > > was not the Earl of Norfolk. I believe one of the Howards
> was
> > > the
> > > > > Earl of
> > > > > > Norfolk. Henry seems to have attached his star to the
House
> > of
> > > > > Tudors and
> > > > > > rose to wealth and fame at the time of these kings. One
> story
> > > had
> > > > > it that he
> > > > > > became Keeper and the Master of the Kings Jewels and
Plate.
> > > Again
> > > > I
> > > > > am sorry
> > > > > > for the diatribe. It is fascinating to me because my late
> > > mother
> > > > is
> > > > > one of
> > > > > > his descendants. Through the marriage of his son
> Thomas "The
> > > > Poet"
> > > > > Wiatt. I
> > > > > > hope to hear from yall. Again I am sorry.
> > > > > > Le
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt
et.al.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Stephen
> Lark"
> > > > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Very good, Marie. I agree that this "Wyatt Manuscript"
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > contemporaraneous but wasn't Whittington actually Lord
> Mayor
> > > FOUR
> > > > > > Times?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, three and a third. His first term was only a 4-mth
> > stand-
> > > in
> > > > on
> > > > > > royal nomination after the death of the presiding mayor
> Adam
> > > Bam;
> > > > > > when election time came up Whittington was voted to
> continue
> > in
> > > > > > office. It seems to be the fashion now to count that as
two
> > > terms,
> > > > > > but when I was at school it was generally treated as one.
I
> > > > > > personally think one is fairer as 3 1/3 is closer to 3
than
> 4
> > > and
> > > > he
> > > > > > was only elected three times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our family are also cat people, and yes the creatures do
> > bring
> > > you
> > > > > > unwanted presents of mice and small birds, and that
> > > > characteristic
> > > > > is
> > > > > > obviously the basis of these stories. But I've yet to
meet
> a
> > > cat
> > > > who
> > > > > > could catch pigeons, or indeed would bring you anything
on
> a
> > > daily
> > > > > > basis. Perhaps if they knew you were starving, and they
> > > actually
> > > > got
> > > > > > praised for their efforts, they'd try harder, but I still
> > think
> > > it
> > > > > > would be mice and sparrows. In fact, I've heard that when
> > cats
> > > do
> > > > > > this they are treating us like their litter of kittens so
> the
> > > > > > tendency to bring in only very small creatures may be
> > instinct.
> > > > > > Needless to say, you wouldn't survive long on a daily
> sparrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A link in one of the Henry Wyatt sites brought me to a
> legend
> > > > about
> > > > > > the 1601 Tower prisoner Henry Wriothesely, whose cat
Trixie
> > > > > > supposedly made her own way to him and kept him company
> > > throughout
> > > > > > his imprisonment. This may have been another ingredient
in
> > the
> > > > Henry
> > > > > > Wyatt legend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, these "barnacles" Wyatt is said to have been forced
> to
> > > wear.
> > > > > > These are glossed in the online article I read as
something
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > pinch a horse's nose to make it behave. Might I suggest
our
> > > > writer's
> > > > > > informant also had blocked nasal passages and the word was
> > > > > > actually "manacles"? "The manacles" was THE favoured form
> of
> > > > torture
> > > > > > in late Tudor times. The following quotations are from
> Antonia
> > > > > > Fraser's "Gunpowder Plot":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ". . . the use of torture, supported by the royal
> > prerogative,
> > > had
> > > > > > actually been on the increase in Englanf under the
Tudors.
> > Far
> > > > from
> > > > > > being a medieval survival, torture was one of the novel
> > weapons
> > > in
> > > > > > the armoury of Henry VIII's servant Thomas Cromwell, who
had
> > > > > > seemingly leart much about this useful European practice
> > during
> > > is
> > > > > > travels abroad for Cardinal Wolsey."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the 1590s thr manacles had become the method most
> > favoured
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > authorities, as they were inexpensive and easy to operate
> for
> > > > those
> > > > > > who applied them. The traitor - or supect - was hung up
by
> > his
> > > > > wrists
> > > > > > against a wall, using iron gauntlets which could be
> gradually
> > > > > > tightened; wood supports beneath the feet would be
reomved
> > and
> > > the
> > > > > > prisoner would be left dangling for several hours,
> sometimes
> > > > > longer."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry - I know it isn't pleasant reading. But I think
> all
> > > this
> > > > > > goes to show that the whole story is an Elizabethan or
> > Jacobean
> > > > > > anachronism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Wiatt
> et.al.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a good topic for Ricardians to discuss. These are
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > serious allegations, so we should pay attention to it.
> Even
> > > if
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > untrue it's all over the net (as I discover) so it
needs
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > addressed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I've seen, looking briefly, the Wyatt papers
> were
> > > > put
> > > > > > > together in 1725, and this document is amongst them. If
> you
> > > > > could
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > a copy of this document you could help to date it by
the
> > > > writing
> > > > > > > style. The bit I've seen quoted is certainly much later
> than
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > III's reign. Most of the spelling is as today - there
are
> > > just
> > > > > > one or
> > > > > > > two exceptions. The consistent use of capitalisation
for
> > > what
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > considered important nouns also smacks of a much later
> era.
> > > My
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > is 17th century, though it could be as late as the time
> the
> > > > > > > collection was put together. It would certainly be very
> > > > unsafe
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > assume the story was actually told by Sir henry Wyatt
of
> > > > > himself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other thing to be aware of is that, particularly
from
> > > > > > Elizabethan
> > > > > > > times, a lot of important families started to fantasise
> > > heroic
> > > > > > > stories for their ancestors which simply aren't borne
out
> > > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > documents of the period. The pro-Richard III Cartarets
of
> > > the
> > > > > > Channel
> > > > > > > Island of Guernsey, for instance, recorded in the late
> 16th
> > > > > > century a
> > > > > > > most affecting tale of their persecution by Henry VII's
> > > > > governor,
> > > > > > > Matthew Baker, of how Philip de Cartaret was imprisoned
> by
> > > him
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > when weak from starvation condemned to trial by combat.
> In
> > > > this
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > he was saved not by a cat but by his poor heavily-
> pregnant
> > > > wife,
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > gave birth to her baby and jumped on a ship for England
> only
> > > > > > hours
> > > > > > > later, to go and plead her husband's case to the King.
> I've
> > > > > > looked
> > > > > > > about for any sign of Cartaret's indictment and pardon,
> but
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > success.
> > > > > > > Bear in mind also the 17th century tale of the 116-year-
> old
> > > > > > Countess
> > > > > > > of Desmond who remembered dancing with the future
Richard
> > > III
> > > > at
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > brother's court. She simply wasn't as old as legend had
> it
> > > > when
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > died - she was too young ever to have danced with
Richard
> > > III.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, Katy's right on this one. The story of the cat is
> > > pure
> > > > > folk
> > > > > > > motif, and should ring warning bells. Just because a
> person
> > > > > > existed
> > > > > > > it doesn't mean all the stories later told of them are
> > > true.
> > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > Whittington did come from Gloucestershire, he was
thrice
> > > > mayor
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > London, snd he did marry Alice FitzWarren. But he
wasn't
> a
> > > > > simple
> > > > > > > peasant boy and he didn't owe his success to a clever
cat.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have most of my books with me,
but
> > > I've
> > > > > > had a
> > > > > > > quick look at Gill's book on Buckingham's Rebellion,
and
> the
> > > > > > > parliament records for Richard III's reign and for
Henry
> > > VII's
> > > > > > reign
> > > > > > > up to 1500. Gill has a lot of detail on the also-rans
who
> > > took
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > in Buckingham's rebellion, but she has not a single
> mention
> > > of
> > > > > > Henry
> > > > > > > Wyatt. He was not one of those attainted by Richard
III's
> > > > > > parliament,
> > > > > > > and he made no petition for compensation to Henry VII's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact is, at that period Henry Wyatt was an obscure
> > > > > > individual,
> > > > > > > and one thing this story does is to make him seem far
more
> > > > > > important
> > > > > > > to Richard III than he was. Richard really had better
> > > things
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > than make daily visits to Wyatt's torture sessions, and
> > > > anyway
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > didn't reside at the Tower after he became King and
> wasn't
> > > > even
> > > > > > > around Westminster all that often.
> > > > > > > There is just one person who complained to Henry's first
> > > > > > parliament
> > > > > > > of his treatment in the Tower at Richard's hands, and
his
> > > > > > petition
> > > > > > > might give you some idea of what Wyatt might have
> > > experienced
> > > > > had
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > been thought to be a key player with serious
information.
> > > This
> > > > > > man
> > > > > > > was John Forster, who was believed to have been
involved
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > conspiracy that led to Hastings' beheading in the Tower
> on
> > > > > Friday
> > > > > > > 13th June 1483. The next day, Saturday, Forster was
> > > arrested
> > > > at
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > home in Hertfordshire, some miles north of London:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid
> lord
> > > > king
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the same parliament by the commons of the realm of
> England
> > > > being
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster,
> > > esquire,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > these words:
> > > > > > > To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this
> > > > present
> > > > > > > parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to
> your
> > > > > > discreet
> > > > > > > wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first
> > > year
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was
> suddenly
> > > > > > seized
> > > > > > > at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants
> and
> > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by
right
> > > > king
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of
> > > > England,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there
to
> the
> > > > > > Tower of
> > > > > > > London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in
> > > irons
> > > > and
> > > > > > > fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink
for
> > > his
> > > > > > > sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the
> > > Tower
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was
> > > > likely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > have perished, except by God's preservation. And
> moreover,
> > > the
> > > > > > said
> > > > > > > John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily
> menaced
> > > and
> > > > > > > threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason
and
> > > also
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless
he
> > > paid
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000
> > > marks.
> > > > And
> > > > > > > also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in
> > > 1,000
> > > > > > marks
> > > > > > > to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right
> king,
> > > by
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > obligations. . . ."
> > > > > > > The "others", by the way, were just Henry Burton, Prior
> of
> > > Dt
> > > > > > Mary
> > > > > > > Overy.
> > > > > > > So Forster was starved, but only for 36 hours - the
> normal
> > > > > tactic
> > > > > > > before interrogation. He was chained to the wall, he was
> > > > > > threatened,
> > > > > > > but he wasn't actually tortured. And this is according
to
> > > his
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > version of events intended to elicit sympathy and
> > > demonstrate
> > > > > > that he
> > > > > > > had handed over the money under extreme duress (so he
> could
> > > > get
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > refund from the crown). This, in other words, would
have
> > > been
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > best attempt to sex up his experience. The 1,000 marks
of
> > > > course
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > a form of bail. Forster had supposedly been involved in
a
> > > > plot
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > assassinate Richard and the Duke of Buckingham and
> possibly
> > > > > > others,
> > > > > > > so it's unlikely any smaller fry would have had a much
> > > harder
> > > > > > time of
> > > > > > > it. In fact, I do wonder whether the Wyatt legend might
> not
> > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > based on Forster's complaint in the first place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
> > > > > > > <LeBateman@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear List
> > > > > > > > It was never my intention to upset anyone, I have been
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > research on the Wiatts for a number of years. I am
> merely
> > > > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > > finding out whether Henry's siblings Thomas, Richard,
> > > > William,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Joan Drax
> > > > > > > > were supporters of either The House of Lancaster or
> York.
> > > > Some
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > material you can not rely on, while other material is
> > > > great.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia Page does not show its sources than I would
> > > > question
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > Wiatts are my ancestors, and I am interested in all
> > > aspects
> > > > of
> > > > > > > their lives
> > > > > > > > and their history. Especially when some lived at the
> same
> > > > time
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > III.
> > > > > > > > Le
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Janet" <forevere@>
> > > > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Henry Wiatt
et.al.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now that this has turned into the Henry Wiatt Forum
> > > (after
> > > > > going
> > > > > > > > through all this last May and July), I wonder if we
can
> > > talk
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > something else. Especially if we are going to accuse
> > > > Richard
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > torture.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps these folks would like to create their own
site
> to
> > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > Henry. Are we here to do research for other people?
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but I just had to vent. We have been overrun.
> > > > > > > > Let's get back to Richard. Or Margaret of York. Has
> anyone
> > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > the new book by Anne Easter Smith about Margaret? I
asm
> > > just
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get into it! She gave a reading and booksigning a few
> > > weeks
> > > > > ago
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > got a very good response from people in the
bookstore.
> > > There
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > some Ricardians there from the Michigan Chapter. The
> > > store
> > > > had
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > out more chairs for all the people coming to hear her
> > > talk!
> > > > > > What do
> > > > > > > > people think of the "love story" between Margaret and
> > > > Anthony
> > > > > > > Woodville?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > L.M.L.,
> > > > > > > > Janet
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>