Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

June 1483

2018-06-25 16:35:46
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I seem to recall that Marie said that Richard Haute was arrested the next day - and Thomas Stanley? Was this the bit where he was told to 'look to his wife'? I'll have a look about attendees at the Tower meeting -presumably they come from More and Croyland? Doug here: FWIW, my understanding was that Stanley was, if not arrested, he was at least under suspicion until further information about the plot was obtained. I believe, there are also reports Stanley was injured in the scuffle/fight. Other than that, I can't say. Hilary continued: Incidentally, Stanley's interesting isn't he because he seems to have remained close to Richard in a post where firstly he must have known all about the evidence given to the Council on the Precontract and secondly on the eventual whereabouts of the boys (that's if Richard himself knew). I agree with Marie who said we should perhaps pay attention to people's actions after Bosworth because you can be sure that if Stanley knew so did MB. Doug here: With regards to the Pre-Contract, prior to HT taking the throne, I can't recall anyone, other than possibly HT himself, claiming it wasn't valid. Did Buckingham even mention it in his manifesto? If part of Buckingham's plans had included the death of the boys, it wouldn't have applied anyway, would it? I do think Richard knew where the boys were, at least until Bosworth. But then, I also tend to think Buckingham was just doing a variation on EW's original plan, substituting himself for Edward and/or Richard and trying to get HT onside by offering him, and MB, EoY. Of course, replacing Edward/Richard with himself also meant something had to be done about them... FWIW, I don't think Stanley actually knew what Richard had done with his nephews, only that they had been moved from the Tower. It is possible, I suppose, that HT merely continued keeping the boys wherever Richard had placed them, but later events don't seem to support that idea. Hilary concluded: BTW on the 'Strawberry' thing which is so improbable it's probably true, where would Morton get them from? I didn't know he had a house in London (though Stillington did)? Would he be nipping off to Lambeth Palace gardens which would mean going up the river and crossing it; quite a journey? Or, is it just possible that he had a house in the vicinity of the Tower, which is why the meeting was held there? Doug here: According to Wikipedia, the Bishops of Ely had a palace, called amazingly enough, Ely Place, located in the Camden/Holborn area of London. My atlas isn't detailed enough to determine exactly where Camden is in relation to Westminster and/or the City, but the article did say it was in northwest London, so I'm presuming it wouldn't have been located on the Thames. Other than that, I don't know. As for those strawberries, I found this link: http://www.blackphoenixgazette.com/on-strawberries/ where the author wrote: Strawberries are also symbols of innocence, peace and spiritual purity. Sort of leaves Morton out, doesn't it? It's only my opinion, but I rather wonder if Morton didn't mention those strawberries because he had to come up with some valid excuse for fetching whatever it was that was brought from Ely Place and then given to Richard? We know roughly when More wrote his History, but we don't have a determined date for when Morton may have written his do we? Which may have required the Cardinal to skate around events that others who were still alive knew had happened. Things such as, say, Morton talking to Richard immediately prior to the break for lunch, followed by Richard receiving something from the Bishop's palace? Followed, once the Council re-gathered, by Richard accusing Hastings of treason and producing evidence of that treason? It wouldn't be hard for someone to put two and two together and come to the conclusion that Morton had provided Richard with the evidence used to sentence Hastings to death. FWIW, I've always presumed the Council meetings were held at the Tower because that was where Edward was. And until Richard was accepted as Protector, Edward's presence, especially his signature, would be required to conduct business, wouldn't it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483

2018-06-25 17:19:03
ricard1an
Doug, St Etheldredas church, once part of Ely Palace, is in Holborn. I went there once and got off in Holborn.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-26 04:38:32
Doug Stamate
Mary, I thought that church was mentioned in the article, but I wasn't certain. At any rate, to get whatever it was from his palace to the Tower, wouldn't have required crossing the Thames and likely could easily have been done during a break for lunch. While there is a mention of Morton saying he'd send Richard some strawberries from the Bishop's garden, there's nothing that says Morton ever did send any. I can only think of two reasons for ever including this little story, presumably by Morton in his missing manuscript; the first would be simply to accentuate how kind and considerate Morton had been to that monster Richard. The other is that Morton had had some sort of conversation with Richard, a conversation seen by others if not overhead, and Morton wanted to provide a reason for that conversation. Because, man of the Church or not, if Morton was involved in the plot, there was no reason he shouldn't have at least been tossed into a cell. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a high-ranking member of the Church had been imprisoned. Or the last; as the treatment of Stillington in 1478, 1485 and again after the Simnel rebellion clearly shows. So the question for me boils down to: Why wasn't Morton tossed into one of those convenient cells in the Tower but, instead, handed over to what amounted to a rather comfortable house arrest under Buckingham? Doug Mary wrote: Doug, St Etheldredas church, once part of Ely Palace, is in Holborn. I went there once and got off in Holborn.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

June 1483

2018-06-26 07:32:13
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: As you see Marie has now given us the date, even earlier than I thought and I would have said your assumption of a six day journey isn't too far out, she wouldn't be galloping along and there was no reason to hurry, the coronation wasn't that soon. So it does look as though things had calmed down by the end of May? Doug here: Richard was confirmed as Protector on 10 May and the date for Edward's coronation and the Parliament to follow was set by 13 May. So I'd imagine that it would have been no later than the middle of May when Richard sent a message to Anne. Allowing 3-4 days for the messenger to get to wherever Anne was and about a week for everything gotten ready for the trip and we end up with 15+4+7 = 26 June, thus giving Anne 9 days to get to London without having to rush. Hilary continued: I'm trying to find who says the Council normally met at the Tower. I would have thought it strange because the seat of government is and always has been Westminster. I suppose the only way is to look through both Edwards' CPRs. I certainly can't record Edward IV writing from the Tower to York or Coventry and he wrote from some interesting places like Reading Abbey. Everyone I've consulted seems to have Richard calling the meeting with certain people - like a Poirot denouement - but I still can't see why he would do this and not denounce them in front of the whole Council. Doug here: I found this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster#Old_Palace and one line popped out, The predecessor of Parliament, the Curia Regis (Royal Council), met in Westminster Hall (although it followed the King when he moved to other palaces). I don't know if the Tower has ever been considered a palace, but I do know it's been call a royal residence. FWIW, it appears to me that at that point, Richard combined the powers and authority of what today is divided between the Prime Minister and Parliament, with Edward's sphere roughly being limited to that currently held by the British monarch. Richard wasn't staying at the Tower, but Edward was. Just as nowadays when the Queen meets with the PM, she doesn't goes go to Downing Street, the PM instead goes to Buckingham Palace, so Richard (and the Council) went to where the King was. However, while King, Constable and a major portion of the Council might be meeting in the Tower, the clerks who wrote up Royal proclamations and such like, would likely remain in Westminster, wouldn't they? I also imagine that, Even if Richard had the powers and authority of a monarch, he'd still want his nephew to become acquainted with his future duties. Did the powers of the Constable include those of making someone a knight or giving someone a title? I certainly could be mistaken, but I have this notion that the giving out of knighthoods or titles being closely associated with newly-minted monarchs; so if Richard couldn't give out knighthoods or titles, then Edward's assent would be needed for who gets on the coronation honors list, wouldn't it? Possibly even some input? As for the attendees on that day, we don't know who was, or wasn't there, do we? I know that Richard was there, so was Hastings. Morton was there, as was Thomas, Lord Stanley. I presume the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer were there, too. The Royal Council included members of the Church who didn't necessarily hold any specific post, so Stillington most likely counted as a member. The same would apply to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, if they weren't already serving in another capacity. While we know that the Council had been divided into two groups, one to deal with coronation matters and the other presumably to run the government, we don't know that both groups, or at least a majority of their members, weren't gathered together at that meeting. It's even possible that the morning meeting in the Tower was the regular governing group, while the afternoon meeting was to be attended by both groups. What may have happened is that Richard, once he'd learned of the plot, summoned some members from the coronation group to attend the afternoon session at the Tower in order to have that many more witnesses to his charges against Hastings, Morton and anyone else involved. Hilary continued: Coronations do take a lot of planning particularly, as was the case, the current Earl Marshal hadn't done one before. If you ever have the stamina to watch our current Queen's coronation you'll see why. There is usually a lot of palava about the order in which people pledge their fidelity - you probably know Philip didn't like having to do that but he did have an input and I reckon Edward would have more than a view. BTW I could understand if they were meeting in the Abbey across the road but then Westminster would be free for the other meeting. Doug here: Until I looked it up I never really realized that there had been an actual Westminster Palace! Apparently, today's Houses of Parliament are situated on part of the former palace's grounds  the things one learns! The drawing of the medieval Palace was quite small, but it appeared to be extensive, walled with quite a few structures inside them. Actually, splitting the Council into two groups sort of makes sense. Obviously there were a lot of people involved in the day-to-day governmental activities that took place at Westminster Palace and if one added those who'd be involved with the coronation, the place might easily become a madhouse! Hilary continued: I agree it was a rushed and botched attempt, just like Northampton/Grafton and I really doubt MB was much involved other than to offer encouragement to anything which might shake the regime and offer a chance to bring HT back into favour. Doug here: I wonder if what we've read about what happened isn't a garbled version of what was supposed to happen? If I recall correctly, supposedly Hastings was prevented from attacking Richard and, as a result of that, taken out and executed. But what if what happened was that Hastings was accused of planning to kill Richard, Richard provided evidence (possibly from Morton?) that supported the charge and then Hastings was taken out and executed? We know Richard wasn't injured at all that day. There are reports that Thomas, Lord Stanley was injured, but nothing definite is known. There are also reports that Hastings was deceased in trouble at the Tower, which would be his execution. What there isn't is any reports of actual fighting taking place, something that surely would have happened had there been an actual, physical attempt on Richard's life. Which leads me to believe that, whatever was planned by Hastings, Morton and others, it may not have been planned for that particular day. I say that because, seemingly, none of the conspirators knew the jig was up until the afternoon meeting had commenced. Surely if Hastings was planning on some sort armed assault on Richard (and Buckingham?), he'd have checked on things before going to the meeting? Making certain his men were where they could quickly respond to his shouts or orders? I admit I'm presuming Hastings wasn't planning on killing Richard himself because, if I understand correctly, no weapons were allowed to be carried into where the Royal Council was meeting. Which tells me that either Richard was to be killed in some sort of sneak attack while moving through the Tower's passages, or else a group of men were to force their way into the Council room and kill Richard. In either case, armed men would be required and, in the latter case, they'd need to be stationed near the Council room. We know, though, that Richard had taken precautions before the afternoon meeting; he'd stationed his own men outside that room and they entered when he shouted! We're to believe Hastings wouldn't have noticed his men weren't in place? If the attack on Richard had been planned for that day, and his men weren't where they were supposed to be in order to carry out that planned attack, then why did Hastings even enter the Council room? I think he did so because whatever was planned, it wasn't planned for that day, certainly not at the Council meeting. Any injuries suffered by anyone were likely caused when Hastings either resisted being taken out and executed or, more likely, when Richard charged him with treason and provided the evidence that proved Hastings' guilt. I could be wrong... Hilary continued: I do think we can have underestimated young Edward. The tone in which he writes of his father in the Leet books (I know it's Rivers, or we think it is) really puts the King on a pedestal 'my most dred lorde and fadre' What 12 year old wouldn't have enjoyed becoming that 'dred lorde himself? And what if someone was whispering in his ear that he could never become that until Uncle Richard was out of the way? Doug here: Other than Dr. Argentine, do we know who made up Edward's household? After Northampton, I'd imagine that Richard would have gone over Edward's retinue very carefully. That doesn't mean Edward wasn't receiving letters on the sly but, other than perhaps some servant relaying verbal messages, it would be very suspect for anyone to be closeted alone with the King. Someone was certain to notice and tell Richard. If someone had managed to inveigle Edward into doing his bit to get rid of Richard, what could Edward actually do? Hilary concluded: Again, it's only me, but I don't think the Precontract had surfaced at this point, after all this was before EW released ROS. I do think the Council must be getting desperate to stabilise things again and were looking for some sort of solution. After all, other countries must have been enjoying the mess as would the followers of HT. One thing I've just noticed - Ross fell open at the page - is that Richard when King dismissed Russell as Keeper of the Privy Seal and replaced him with John Gunthorpe. Now Gunthorpe was a buddy of Stillington, Dean of Wells,and 'chaplain to the household' - yes another source of info on the Precontract perhaps? Should have noticed that before. Doug here: Perhaps it would make a difference if we changed the parameters a bit? Rather than trying to work out a solution working on the hypothesis that the Council had been informed about the Pre-Contract, we changed to a working hypothesis that some member, or members, of the Council had been informed? Would knowledge of the Pre-Contract possibly help explain some action or actions of any of those involved? When Richard dismissed Russell as Keeper of the Privy Seal, didn't he make him Lord Chancellor? As for John Gunthorpe, all I know about him is from this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gunthorpe Apparently Gunthorpe became a monk, obviously not cloistered, helped found a guild in Lincolnshire, and served Edward IV on diplomatic missions. If the article is correct, Gunthorpe didn't become Dean of Wells until after Bosworth. I couldn't find any definite connection with Stillington, although Gunthorpe most definitely was serving Edward IV from about 1465 until Edward's death, then Richard until his death and finally Henry Tudor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-26 11:29:30
Hilary Jones
Holborn's on the same side of the river Doug, but it's still quite a march I would have thought? Googling the distance they advise taking the tube so Morton's route was probably worst on foot than going up the river to Lambeth. Incidentally, the first timings Google gave was one hour eight minutes, but that turned out to be the Tower Brasserie at Slough :) :)
Reading Carol's very useful contribution I reckon the strawberries started with More and then Shakespeare 'made a meal of them' - sorry, couldn't resist, it's the heat!
Re meetings at the Tower (in your other email), I've attached a copy of a page of CPR for Edward V
Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Prepared under the superintendence of the deputy keeper of the records. Edward III. ... 1476-1485 Edward IV Edward V Richard III.


Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Pre...

Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Prepared under the superintendence of the d...


You can see on page 350/351 that some of the items were signed by the King (Edward) at Westminster - not one at the Tower, so I'm not sure whether the Tower meetings are again Mancini/More/ Croyland/ Shakespeare. We haven't got Marie to help us at the moment, Ill try and dig. Re keeping Morton in the cells of the Tower, the Tower was more a royal residence and workplace than prison then. We owe its perception of that to fat Henry.
Sorry I'm trying to answer two of your emails here so on to the bit about Stanley. Let's say at some point Richard sent the boys away for safety - probably after the attempted break-in to the Tower. Who did he trust, who did he ask for help, where did he send prisoners for safe keeping, where did he send the other children - Yorkshire of course!! If I was looking (and that's on the assumption they were sent anywhere) that's where I'd start. So I think I'd look at MB's actions after Bosworth to see if there are any clues. Another job :) :)
H Sorry if this is inarticulate - written during multiple interruptons.



On Tuesday, 26 June 2018, 04:38:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, I thought that church was mentioned in the article, but I wasn't certain. At any rate, to get whatever it was from his palace to the Tower, wouldn't have required crossing the Thames and likely could easily have been done during a break for lunch. While there is a mention of Morton saying he'd send Richard some strawberries from the Bishop's garden, there's nothing that says Morton ever did send any. I can only think of two reasons for ever including this little story, presumably by Morton in his missing manuscript; the first would be simply to accentuate how kind and considerate Morton had been to that monster Richard.. The other is that Morton had had some sort of conversation with Richard, a conversation seen by others if not overhead, and Morton wanted to provide a reason for that conversation. Because, man of the Church or not, if Morton was involved in the plot, there was no reason he shouldn't have at least been tossed into a cell. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a high-ranking member of the Church had been imprisoned. Or the last; as the treatment of Stillington in 1478, 1485 and again after the Simnel rebellion clearly shows. So the question for me boils down to: Why wasn't Morton tossed into one of those convenient cells in the Tower but, instead, handed over to what amounted to a rather comfortable house arrest under Buckingham? Doug Mary wrote: Doug, St Etheldredas church, once part of Ely Palace, is in Holborn. I went there once and got off in Holborn.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483

2018-06-26 11:42:44
Hilary Jones
I can't seem to get into the forum main page, we seem to have been obliterated from Google. Can anyone help please. And if I can't get in how can anyone new ever join? It's worrying, let alone annoying.

I was going to change the title of this to Gunthorpe, so sorry.
Doug he was Dean of Wells from Dec 1472. This is a better article:

Gunthorpe, John (DNB00) - Wikisource, the free online library

Gunthorpe, John (DNB00) - Wikisource, the free online library



And here we have two Stillington associates and Confessors of the Household/Chaplains together. Ingleby is his nephew by marriage, Gunthorpe his deputy
Demise by John Ingilby the prior, and the convent of the house of Jesys of Bethleem,... | The National Archives
Demise by John Ingilby the prior, and the convent of the house of Jesys ...

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...



Growing closer again to Stillington isn't it? H


On Tuesday, 26 June 2018, 07:32:18 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: As you see Marie has now given us the date, even earlier than I thought and I would have said your assumption of a six day journey isn't too far out, she wouldn't be galloping along and there was no reason to hurry, the coronation wasn't that soon. So it does look as though things had calmed down by the end of May? Doug here: Richard was confirmed as Protector on 10 May and the date for Edward's coronation and the Parliament to follow was set by 13 May. So I'd imagine that it would have been no later than the middle of May when Richard sent a message to Anne. Allowing 3-4 days for the messenger to get to wherever Anne was and about a week for everything gotten ready for the trip and we end up with 15+4+7 = 26 June, thus giving Anne 9 days to get to London without having to rush. Hilary continued: I'm trying to find who says the Council normally met at the Tower. I would have thought it strange because the seat of government is and always has been Westminster. I suppose the only way is to look through both Edwards' CPRs. I certainly can't record Edward IV writing from the Tower to York or Coventry and he wrote from some interesting places like Reading Abbey. Everyone I've consulted seems to have Richard calling the meeting with certain people - like a Poirot denouement - but I still can't see why he would do this and not denounce them in front of the whole Council. Doug here: I found this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster#Old_Palace and one line popped out, The predecessor of Parliament, the Curia Regis (Royal Council), met in Westminster Hall (although it followed the King when he moved to other palaces). I don't know if the Tower has ever been considered a palace, but I do know it's been call a royal residence. FWIW, it appears to me that at that point, Richard combined the powers and authority of what today is divided between the Prime Minister and Parliament, with Edward's sphere roughly being limited to that currently held by the British monarch. Richard wasn't staying at the Tower, but Edward was. Just as nowadays when the Queen meets with the PM, she doesn't goes go to Downing Street, the PM instead goes to Buckingham Palace, so Richard (and the Council) went to where the King was. However, while King, Constable and a major portion of the Council might be meeting in the Tower, the clerks who wrote up Royal proclamations and such like, would likely remain in Westminster, wouldn't they? I also imagine that, Even if Richard had the powers and authority of a monarch, he'd still want his nephew to become acquainted with his future duties. Did the powers of the Constable include those of making someone a knight or giving someone a title? I certainly could be mistaken, but I have this notion that the giving out of knighthoods or titles being closely associated with newly-minted monarchs; so if Richard couldn't give out knighthoods or titles, then Edward's assent would be needed for who gets on the coronation honors list, wouldn't it? Possibly even some input? As for the attendees on that day, we don't know who was, or wasn't there, do we? I know that Richard was there, so was Hastings. Morton was there, as was Thomas, Lord Stanley. I presume the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer were there, too. The Royal Council included members of the Church who didn't necessarily hold any specific post, so Stillington most likely counted as a member. The same would apply to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, if they weren't already serving in another capacity. While we know that the Council had been divided into two groups, one to deal with coronation matters and the other presumably to run the government, we don't know that both groups, or at least a majority of their members, weren't gathered together at that meeting. It's even possible that the morning meeting in the Tower was the regular governing group, while the afternoon meeting was to be attended by both groups. What may have happened is that Richard, once he'd learned of the plot, summoned some members from the coronation group to attend the afternoon session at the Tower in order to have that many more witnesses to his charges against Hastings, Morton and anyone else involved. Hilary continued: Coronations do take a lot of planning particularly, as was the case, the current Earl Marshal hadn't done one before. If you ever have the stamina to watch our current Queen's coronation you'll see why. There is usually a lot of palava about the order in which people pledge their fidelity - you probably know Philip didn't like having to do that but he did have an input and I reckon Edward would have more than a view. BTW I could understand if they were meeting in the Abbey across the road but then Westminster would be free for the other meeting. Doug here: Until I looked it up I never really realized that there had been an actual Westminster Palace! Apparently, today's Houses of Parliament are situated on part of the former palace's grounds  the things one learns! The drawing of the medieval Palace was quite small, but it appeared to be extensive, walled with quite a few structures inside them. Actually, splitting the Council into two groups sort of makes sense. Obviously there were a lot of people involved in the day-to-day governmental activities that took place at Westminster Palace and if one added those who'd be involved with the coronation, the place might easily become a madhouse! Hilary continued: I agree it was a rushed and botched attempt, just like Northampton/Grafton and I really doubt MB was much involved other than to offer encouragement to anything which might shake the regime and offer a chance to bring HT back into favour. Doug here: I wonder if what we've read about what happened isn't a garbled version of what was supposed to happen? If I recall correctly, supposedly Hastings was prevented from attacking Richard and, as a result of that, taken out and executed. But what if what happened was that Hastings was accused of planning to kill Richard, Richard provided evidence (possibly from Morton?) that supported the charge and then Hastings was taken out and executed? We know Richard wasn't injured at all that day. There are reports that Thomas, Lord Stanley was injured, but nothing definite is known. There are also reports that Hastings was deceased in trouble at the Tower, which would be his execution. What there isn't is any reports of actual fighting taking place, something that surely would have happened had there been an actual, physical attempt on Richard's life. Which leads me to believe that, whatever was planned by Hastings, Morton and others, it may not have been planned for that particular day. I say that because, seemingly, none of the conspirators knew the jig was up until the afternoon meeting had commenced. Surely if Hastings was planning on some sort armed assault on Richard (and Buckingham?), he'd have checked on things before going to the meeting? Making certain his men were where they could quickly respond to his shouts or orders? I admit I'm presuming Hastings wasn't planning on killing Richard himself because, if I understand correctly, no weapons were allowed to be carried into where the Royal Council was meeting. Which tells me that either Richard was to be killed in some sort of sneak attack while moving through the Tower's passages, or else a group of men were to force their way into the Council room and kill Richard. In either case, armed men would be required and, in the latter case, they'd need to be stationed near the Council room. We know, though, that Richard had taken precautions before the afternoon meeting; he'd stationed his own men outside that room and they entered when he shouted! We're to believe Hastings wouldn't have noticed his men weren't in place? If the attack on Richard had been planned for that day, and his men weren't where they were supposed to be in order to carry out that planned attack, then why did Hastings even enter the Council room? I think he did so because whatever was planned, it wasn't planned for that day, certainly not at the Council meeting. Any injuries suffered by anyone were likely caused when Hastings either resisted being taken out and executed or, more likely, when Richard charged him with treason and provided the evidence that proved Hastings' guilt. I could be wrong... Hilary continued: I do think we can have underestimated young Edward. The tone in which he writes of his father in the Leet books (I know it's Rivers, or we think it is) really puts the King on a pedestal 'my most dred lorde and fadre' What 12 year old wouldn't have enjoyed becoming that 'dred lorde himself? And what if someone was whispering in his ear that he could never become that until Uncle Richard was out of the way? Doug here: Other than Dr. Argentine, do we know who made up Edward's household? After Northampton, I'd imagine that Richard would have gone over Edward's retinue very carefully. That doesn't mean Edward wasn't receiving letters on the sly but, other than perhaps some servant relaying verbal messages, it would be very suspect for anyone to be closeted alone with the King. Someone was certain to notice and tell Richard. If someone had managed to inveigle Edward into doing his bit to get rid of Richard, what could Edward actually do? Hilary concluded: Again, it's only me, but I don't think the Precontract had surfaced at this point, after all this was before EW released ROS. I do think the Council must be getting desperate to stabilise things again and were looking for some sort of solution. After all, other countries must have been enjoying the mess as would the followers of HT. One thing I've just noticed - Ross fell open at the page - is that Richard when King dismissed Russell as Keeper of the Privy Seal and replaced him with John Gunthorpe. Now Gunthorpe was a buddy of Stillington, Dean of Wells,and 'chaplain to the household' - yes another source of info on the Precontract perhaps? Should have noticed that before. Doug here: Perhaps it would make a difference if we changed the parameters a bit? Rather than trying to work out a solution working on the hypothesis that the Council had been informed about the Pre-Contract, we changed to a working hypothesis that some member, or members, of the Council had been informed? Would knowledge of the Pre-Contract possibly help explain some action or actions of any of those involved? When Richard dismissed Russell as Keeper of the Privy Seal, didn't he make him Lord Chancellor? As for John Gunthorpe, all I know about him is from this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gunthorpe Apparently Gunthorpe became a monk, obviously not cloistered, helped found a guild in Lincolnshire, and served Edward IV on diplomatic missions. If the article is correct, Gunthorpe didn't become Dean of Wells until after Bosworth. I couldn't find any definite connection with Stillington, although Gunthorpe most definitely was serving Edward IV from about 1465 until Edward's death, then Richard until his death and finally Henry Tudor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-26 13:45:53
ricard1an
Fascinating document Hilary. Would we be able to keep in the files? Interesting stuff the amount of power given to Buckingham. Not happy to read he was given the Lordship of Bewdley. Also he appeared to have been given authority to recruit troops in Salop (Shropshire} Herefordshire and I think Dorset and Somerset.
Did I read some of it correctly, were Dorset and Rivers subject to an inquisition regarding money received? I may have read it wrongly. Also saw something about Matthew Craddock which could have meant that he was involved in piracy or it could have meant his ship was attacked by pirates.
Mary

Re: June 1483

2018-06-26 19:57:25
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"I can't seem to get into the forum main page, we seem to have been obliterated from Google. Can anyone help please."

Try this URL, which should take you to the list of messages: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages

If it works, I suggest bookmarking it. That's how I get in.

Carol

Re: June 1483

2018-06-27 10:00:49
Hilary Jones
Thanks so very much Carol - yes it works!!
But it is worrying because if you google yahoo group forums on R it just brings up the defunct one on the Society's page. It means any new person stands no chance. H
On Tuesday, 26 June 2018, 20:09:48 BST, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:


"I can't seem to get into the forum main page, we seem to have been obliterated from Google. Can anyone help please."

Try this URL, which should take you to the list of messages: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages

If it works, I suggest bookmarking it. That's how I get in.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-27 10:12:29
Hilary Jones
You can access them via google Mary. Just look for Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward IV etc. They are there for all the kings of the period. You can download them from archive.org but as a pdf where they're not as easy to read or search as those where you can turn the page. I go for the Hathi trust ones but I suppose it depends on your broadband deal.
I'll look at those you mention. In the meantime have a look at the entry for 18 March 1483 (page 854) where Rivers, Grey, Catesby (John) and some others including Haute are commissioned to investigate treason in Hereford. If they did then this would mean they were on the other side of the country (not East Anglia) 3 weeks' before Edward died. Why do these things always happen just as Marie gets on a plane :)
I think you will find them very interesting because like me you recognise names that some others don't and as I've always said lots of eyes are better than just me. H

On Tuesday, 26 June 2018, 13:45:57 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Fascinating document Hilary. Would we be able to keep in the files? Interesting stuff the amount of power given to Buckingham. Not happy to read he was given the Lordship of Bewdley. Also he appeared to have been given authority to recruit troops in Salop (Shropshire} Herefordshire and I think Dorset and Somerset.


Did I read some of it correctly, were Dorset and Rivers subject to an inquisition regarding money received? I may have read it wrongly. Also saw something about Matthew Craddock which could have meant that he was involved in piracy or it could have meant his ship was attacked by pirates.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-27 21:21:42
ricard1an
I found it on google. That seems odd about Rivers, so would he have had to have been in Hereford around about March 18th 1483 or could he have sent someone else? Also there is a John Twynho of Cirencester on the same Commission of Oyer and Terminer. Just saying..
Thank you for telling me about this. Great resource.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-28 07:13:31
mariewalsh2003
Hi,I'll have to make this very quick. May have snatched mo's on phone in next 4 was but no more - and no access to notes or sources.

Not too much should be read into apptmtm to commission of other & terminer in a lord's area of influence. Usually more a courtesy than a command. The way the full text of these commissions was written, only two of the king's justices were required to attend to make the quorum.
Also , this is the date the commission was given- the hearing may have been quite a bit later. So this in no way clashes with the hard evidence we have for Rivers being in Norfolk at this time.
The only way to know who actually sat on the commission (assuming it wasn't invalidated by Ed iv's death before it could take place) would be to find the records of the hearing(s), which if they have survived, will be in the KB 9 series in TNA, and hope they record the names of the panel.
Very many of the kB 9s have been digitised and can be found on the AALT (Anglo American Legal Tradition) website, but except for those few files which just contain the records of a single commission they have not been indexed so have to be trawled through.
It would be worth doing to be sure this hadn't prompted Rivers to head west. I can maybe look when I get home as I have been through some of the 1483 KB9s in the past.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-28 09:34:44
Hilary Jones
Many, many thanks Marie! Have a good time H
On Thursday, 28 June 2018, 07:13:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,I'll have to make this very quick. May have snatched mo's on phone in next 4 was but no more - and no access to notes or sources.

Not too much should be read into apptmtm to commission of other & terminer in a lord's area of influence. Usually more a courtesy than a command. The way the full text of these commissions was written, only two of the king's justices were required to attend to make the quorum.
Also , this is the date the commission was given- the hearing may have been quite a bit later. So this in no way clashes with the hard evidence we have for Rivers being in Norfolk at this time.
The only way to know who actually sat on the commission (assuming it wasn't invalidated by Ed iv's death before it could take place) would be to find the records of the hearing(s), which if they have survived, will be in the KB 9 series in TNA, and hope they record the names of the panel.
Very many of the kB 9s have been digitised and can be found on the AALT (Anglo American Legal Tradition) website, but except for those few files which just contain the records of a single commission they have not been indexed so have to be trawled through.
It would be worth doing to be sure this hadn't prompted Rivers to head west. I can maybe look when I get home as I have been through some of the 1483 KB9s in the past.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-28 11:00:22
Hilary Jones
Mary, Marie (if you pick this up) I've done a search on the KB9s at the NA, there seems to be a gap between 3 March 1483 and 9 June 1483. Will look at AALT H
On Thursday, 28 June 2018, 07:13:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,I'll have to make this very quick. May have snatched mo's on phone in next 4 was but no more - and no access to notes or sources.

Not too much should be read into apptmtm to commission of other & terminer in a lord's area of influence. Usually more a courtesy than a command. The way the full text of these commissions was written, only two of the king's justices were required to attend to make the quorum.
Also , this is the date the commission was given- the hearing may have been quite a bit later. So this in no way clashes with the hard evidence we have for Rivers being in Norfolk at this time.
The only way to know who actually sat on the commission (assuming it wasn't invalidated by Ed iv's death before it could take place) would be to find the records of the hearing(s), which if they have survived, will be in the KB 9 series in TNA, and hope they record the names of the panel.
Very many of the kB 9s have been digitised and can be found on the AALT (Anglo American Legal Tradition) website, but except for those few files which just contain the records of a single commission they have not been indexed so have to be trawled through.
It would be worth doing to be sure this hadn't prompted Rivers to head west. I can maybe look when I get home as I have been through some of the 1483 KB9s in the past.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1

2018-06-28 16:14:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Holborn's on the same side of the river Doug, but it's still quite a march I would have thought? Googling the distance they advise taking the tube so Morton's route was probably worst on foot than going up the river to Lambeth. Incidentally, the first timings Google gave was one hour eight minutes, but that turned out to be the Tower Brasserie at Slough :) Reading Carol's very useful contribution I reckon the strawberries started with More and then Shakespeare 'made a meal of them' - sorry, couldn't resist, it's the heat! Doug here: Two thoughts about the route from the Tower to Holborn: the first is that, if I recall correctly, Samuel Pepys used to go by boat from his house near the Tower to Whitehall in the 1670-80s. Couldn't Morton, or a servant, do the same in 1483? The second thought is based on my idea that Morton was trying to provide a cover story for having spent time talking privately (or as privately as possible) with Richard that morning and that the strawberries were given in Morton's write-up as that excuse. Richard may have been acting, at least partially, on something Morton told to him during that conversation, with any physical evidence being sent for by Morton and actually received after the events of that day had taken place. Part of my problem is trying to imagine how a sneaky and underhanded person might operate! Hilary continued: Re meetings at the Tower (in your other email), I've attached a copy of a page of CPR for Edward V Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Prepared under the superintendence of the deputy keeper of the records. Edward III. ... 1476-1485 Edward IV Edward V Richard III.
Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Pre...

Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office / Prepared under the superintendence of the d...

You can see on page 350/351 that some of the items were signed by the King (Edward) at Westminster - not one at the Tower, so I'm not sure whether the Tower meetings are again Mancini/More/ Croyland/ Shakespeare. We haven't got Marie to help us at the moment, Ill try and dig. Re keeping Morton in the cells of the Tower, the Tower was more a royal residence and workplace than prison then. We owe its perception of that to fat Henry. Doug here: That link is very interesting! One thing I noted, though, was that the entries had notations after them. Some had by p.s., others by K. and some had no notation at all. Do you know what those notations mean? There was also a commission on 26 April with a by C. at the end. I flipped through a couple of pages and, on page 358, came across two entries at the top of the page that were listed on the left as Westminster, but had, respectively, Essex and York at the end of the entry. Have you any idea what that means? Needless to say, I didn't go through all the entries, so I don't know what the notation, if any, is for documents agreed to and signed while Edward was residing in the Tower. What do you think of the idea that Westminster was used when the king was anywhere in London or even one of the nearby palaces? Sheen, for example? Hilary concluded: Sorry I'm trying to answer two of your emails here so on to the bit about Stanley. Let's say at some point Richard sent the boys away for safety - probably after the attempted break-in to the Tower. Who did he trust, who did he ask for help, where did he send prisoners for safe keeping, where did he send the other children - Yorkshire of course!! If I was looking (and that's on the assumption they were sent anywhere) that's where I'd start. So I think I'd look at MB's actions after Bosworth to see if there are any clues. Another job :) :) H Sorry if this is inarticulate - written during multiple interruptons. Doug here: Since hearing about henchmen I've tended to think that the boys were moved out of the Tower as members of some noble's entourage, deposited for a short while in some country house and then separate, because people would be searching for two boys. If there's any truth to the Tyrell legend that EW and her sons stayed at his country house, that would be the first step in hiding the boys. The younger was then sent across to Flanders alone; perhaps that's where the rumor of one of them dying came from? If Richard went alone, where was Edward? What do you think of the Duke of Norfolk as being in on where Edward was sequestered? He was loyal to Richard to the point of dying for him at Bosworth, so one could easily imagine him also knowing where in England Richard had placed Edward. And his death would have prevented anyone from discovering from Howard just where Edward was. My knowledge of MB's post-Bosworth movements is limited to it being noted that she gathered up the occupants of Sherriff Hutton shortly after the battle. Further than that, I can't say. Doug Who wasn't interrupted, but still isn't certain being articulate!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-06-28 16:23:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Thanks for the correction! FWIW, I've put this information on a mental back burner to see if letting it simmer away produces anything. However, Gunthorpe does seem to have been rather extensively employed by Edward IV, particularly in foreign matters, so I don't know how deeply we can mix him into domestic affairs. There is Gunthorpe's appointment as, I believe, Edward Chaplain, so seemingly he was closely associated with Edward when not performing any additional duties. Where's the Cloud when you really need it? Doug Whose metaphors must mean it's lunchtime! Hilary wrote: I can't seem to get into the forum main page, we seem to have been obliterated from Google. Can anyone help please. And if I can't get in how can anyone new ever join? It's worrying, let alone annoying. I was going to change the title of this to Gunthorpe, so sorry. Doug he was Dean of Wells from Dec 1472. This is a better article: Gunthorpe, John (DNB00) - Wikisource, the free online library
Gunthorpe, John (DNB00) - Wikisource, the free online library

And here we have two Stillington associates and Confessors of the Household/Chaplains together. Ingleby is his nephew by marriage, Gunthorpe his deputy Demise by John Ingilby the prior, and the convent of the house of Jesys of Bethleem,... | The National Archives Demise by John Ingilby the prior, and the convent of the house of Jesys ...

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...

Growing closer again to Stillington isn't it?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1

2018-06-28 20:07:20
ricard1an
Yes, Doug I have wondered about Howard being involved. On the map Framlingham,Howard's castle, isn't far from Gipping, so would be possible.
Mary


Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-06-29 05:12:29
mariewalsh2003
Don't worry. TnNA catalogue not well set up for searching on dates. Most files are dated by law term and as well as o and t also contain the records sent up to King's Bench by county commissions of the peace, sometimes years after the event.
The files with clear date are generally those dedicated to a single o and t commission, and the date is probably that on which the inquest was held.
Also not all the files are consecutive. AALT has one main run (300s I think) but there are important files with quite different numbers. I have what I think is a full list for the period at home so will check in mths time.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-06-29 15:34:32
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Yes, Doug I have wondered about Howard being involved. On the map Framlingham,Howard's castle, isn't far from Gipping, so would be possible. Doug here: I only thought of Howard because I simply couldn't match the confusion after Bosworth about whether or not the boys had survived, and if so where they were, with Stanley being involved. There wouldn't, or so I it seems to me, be so much uncertainty about the boys' fates. But as best we can tell, no one knew exactly where the boys were. No one alive, anyway. At any rate, and mainly because of his known loyalty to Richard, Howard seemed to me to be a much better choice for having knowledge of the boys' whereabouts. And his death, simultaneous with Richard's, would remove the two people with that knowledge. Tyrrell's knowledge may have been limited to knowing that the plan was to separate the boys and that arrangements had been made to send the younger boy overseas. In the latter case, how many ships made trips from the area of Harwich to the Low Countries every year? Even trolling through the the Customs Rolls wouldn't necessarily get an answer, what with it being possible any ship/captain involved may have switched its' base to a different port for economic reasons or possibly been lost at sea. As for trying to discover with whom Richard may have placed Edward; one couldn't rule out any well-known Yorkist or Yorkist supporters, which would make the task nearly impossible, what with young boys being farmed out all over the country as part of their learning their duties as members of the nobility/gentry. Howard, OTOH, would have quite a few manors where the arrival of a single boy wouldn't start tongues wagging. Especially if, as I tend to think, both boys had been informed of the fate they faced if their whereabouts became known to someone such as Henry Tudor or even one of his supporters, hoping to get in good with him... Just a thought, but perhaps Catesby's execution, apparently unexpected by the victim, was because he didn't know where the boys were; not because of anything to do with the Pre-Contract? As a member of Richard's governing inner circle, it could be easily expected that Catesby would have knowledge of something so important. And when it was discovered Catesby didn't know the boys' whereabouts, there was no reason for Stanley to risk any of his influence with HT, and that's presuming he even had any, in getting Catesby's life spared. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-06-29 17:10:34
ricard1an
I think that possibly EW knew. In Audrey Williamson's book" The Mystery of the Princes" written in the 1950s she tells of a conversation she had with a descendant of the Tyrrells. Apparently in the Tyrrell family there was a story that " the princes were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle". The family never spoke about it because they thought that it might be taken as proof that James Tyrrell had indeed murdered the Princes. Audrey thought that it meant that Richard had moved them from the Tower and allowed their mother to go with them to Gipping before they were taken abroad. EW never accused Richard of killing them even after H7 became King. She may not have known exactly where they were but maybe she could have received messages over the years telling her that they were safe.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-06-30 15:59:05
Doug Stamate
Mary, FWIW, I tend to the idea that all that EW knew was that her sons weren't dead. There may very well have been some sort of system in place for letters to be exchanged, but further than that I seriously doubt. Especially if the major reason for the boys' being separated and hidden was to protect them. One thing some people fail to recognize is that the idea that the younger boy should be placed in the care of a well-to-do merchant in Flanders wouldn't be going against Richard's promise not to demean EW's children. We tend to focus on her daughters, but the same condition almost certainly would have applied to the boys as well. Richard being placed in the household of a wealthy merchant in Flanders would have been the equivalent of his being placed in the keeping of a well-to-do member of the county gentry in England, and even more so if that member of the gentry was, say, a knight. My understanding is that in the socio-economic makeup of Flanders, well-to-do merchants were the equivalent of the well-to-do gentry in England. There just weren't that many nobles, comparatively speaking. Richard most certainly wouldn't have been sent to live with his aunt, the ruler of Burgundy, as that would have been the same as keeping him as Richard's side in London and wherever else the king went. It doesn't mean Margaret didn't know where her nephew was, but rather that her participation in his concealment would have been to keep an eye on whoever was actually caring for the boy. The same, of course, would have applied to Edward in England. As a proclaimed, if not crowned, king;; if Edward's whereabouts became known, he could have become the focus, willingly or otherwise, of any group disaffected with his uncle, as well as a sitting target for those who may have already once tried to kill him. Buckingham's execution only removed one person who stood to gain from Edward's death; Tudor was still alive and plotting, first in Brittany and then in France. Doug Mary wrote: I think that possibly EW knew. In Audrey Williamson's book" The Mystery of the Princes" written in the 1950s she tells of a conversation she had with a descendant of the Tyrrells. Apparently in the Tyrrell family there was a story that " the princes were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle". The family never spoke about it because they thought that it might be taken as proof that James Tyrrell had indeed murdered the Princes. Audrey thought that it meant that Richard had moved them from the Tower and allowed their mother to go with them to Gipping before they were taken abroad. EW never accused Richard of killing them even after H7 became King. She may not have known exactly where they were but maybe she could have received messages over the years telling her that they were safe.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-04 10:31:35
Hilary Jones
Doug, Mary, sorry t have been away a bit - have to work sometimes! I have a real problem with the boys being sent abroad. That's because 'abroad' wasn't the safe place it had been for Richard at earlier times in his life. Charles of Burgundy had been killed at Nancy, Margaret no longer had any power; the French were intent (and continued to be) on extending into the Low Countries and what is now Italy. No Europe was not a good place to be. Somewhere where you could be sure they would be secure was much more sensible. Like Yorkshire - where Richard sent everyone else. What a pity he didn't send Morton!
Will write more later H
On Saturday, 30 June 2018, 15:59:12 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, FWIW, I tend to the idea that all that EW knew was that her sons weren't dead. There may very well have been some sort of system in place for letters to be exchanged, but further than that I seriously doubt. Especially if the major reason for the boys' being separated and hidden was to protect them. One thing some people fail to recognize is that the idea that the younger boy should be placed in the care of a well-to-do merchant in Flanders wouldn't be going against Richard's promise not to demean EW's children. We tend to focus on her daughters, but the same condition almost certainly would have applied to the boys as well. Richard being placed in the household of a wealthy merchant in Flanders would have been the equivalent of his being placed in the keeping of a well-to-do member of the county gentry in England, and even more so if that member of the gentry was, say, a knight. My understanding is that in the socio-economic makeup of Flanders, well-to-do merchants were the equivalent of the well-to-do gentry in England. There just weren't that many nobles, comparatively speaking. Richard most certainly wouldn't have been sent to live with his aunt, the ruler of Burgundy, as that would have been the same as keeping him as Richard's side in London and wherever else the king went. It doesn't mean Margaret didn't know where her nephew was, but rather that her participation in his concealment would have been to keep an eye on whoever was actually caring for the boy. The same, of course, would have applied to Edward in England. As a proclaimed, if not crowned, king;; if Edward's whereabouts became known, he could have become the focus, willingly or otherwise, of any group disaffected with his uncle, as well as a sitting target for those who may have already once tried to kill him. Buckingham's execution only removed one person who stood to gain from Edward's death; Tudor was still alive and plotting, first in Brittany and then in France. Doug Mary wrote: I think that possibly EW knew. In Audrey Williamson's book" The Mystery of the Princes" written in the 1950s she tells of a conversation she had with a descendant of the Tyrrells. Apparently in the Tyrrell family there was a story that " the princes were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle". The family never spoke about it because they thought that it might be taken as proof that James Tyrrell had indeed murdered the Princes. Audrey thought that it meant that Richard had moved them from the Tower and allowed their mother to go with them to Gipping before they were taken abroad. EW never accused Richard of killing them even after H7 became King. She may not have known exactly where they were but maybe she could have received messages over the years telling her that they were safe.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-04 16:56:20
destamate

Hilary,

While I see your points about Burgundy and France, I do wonder just how applicable they might be?

If Richard did send his eponymous nephew to some place in Flanders, as best we can determine with any certainty the one place he didn't send him was to Margaret's court. IOW, Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't placed anywhere where he'd be easily discovered as being Richard of Shrewsbury; on the contrary, he was, if the stories are true, placed in the home of a fairly well-to-do citizen.

Now, I'm not trying to impugn the efficacy of the French intelligence system of the late 15th century but, or so it seems to me, we'd be giving Louis and his minions 'way too much credit if we presumed that his intelligence-gathering network was so sweeping that the appearance of one pre-teen in a merchant's house in Flanders would come to their notice. FWIW, that alone is a major reason I tend to credit "Perkin" with being exactly who he claimed to be; his place of hiding had been one that wasn't under the usual scrutiny of Louis' agents and informers, something that certainly wouldn't have applied to Margaret's court, regardless of any power she did or didn't have. This is not to say that Louis didn't have agents in Tournai and Antwerp, merely that those agents would have had their eyes on other, likely more pressing matters.

I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV.

BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?

Doug

who sits contentedly enjoying both his retirement and a national holiday (the 4th of July)...


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-05 10:33:09
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, hope you had a good day!
My problem is I just don't believe that Warbeck was ROS - for a start he was short and we now know that even Richard without his scoliosis would have been quite tall for that time. So we'll have to agree to differ on that.
Brampton was in Portugal at the time of Bosworth and didn't return to England for 3 years. He seems to have travelled between Portugal and Bruges on both trade and diplomatic missions for the Portuguese kings. He left Bruges in May 1487 to live permanently in Portugal. Warbeck travelled with Brampton's wife to Portugal in Easter 1487. As far as is known he never travelled with Brampton himself.
All this and the chaos in Flanders from 1482 onwards is in detail in Ian Arthurson's book. Now I know there is some dispute about his access to records that were supposedly lost in bombing, but the general state of politics in that part of Europe is pretty well known. Portugal would have been a safer place to send anyone than Flanders.
Incidentally, I'm not against the 'Gipping theory'. I just think Richard would have wanted them somewhere he could keep his eye on them. There were enough adventurers - De Vere, HT, Jasper 'out there' already. H
On Wednesday, 4 July 2018, 16:56:27 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

While I see your points about Burgundy and France, I do wonder just how applicable they might be?

If Richard did send his eponymous nephew to some place in Flanders, as best we can determine with any certainty the one place he didn't send him was to Margaret's court. IOW, Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't placed anywhere where he'd be easily discovered as being Richard of Shrewsbury; on the contrary, he was, if the stories are true, placed in the home of a fairly well-to-do citizen.

Now, I'm not trying to impugn the efficacy of the French intelligence system of the late 15th century but, or so it seems to me, we'd be giving Louis and his minions 'way too much credit if we presumed that his intelligence-gathering network was so sweeping that the appearance of one pre-teen in a merchant's house in Flanders would come to their notice. FWIW, that alone is a major reason I tend to credit "Perkin" with being exactly who he claimed to be; his place of hiding had been one that wasn't under the usual scrutiny of Louis' agents and informers, something that certainly wouldn't have applied to Margaret's court, regardless of any power she did or didn't have. This is not to say that Louis didn't have agents in Tournai and Antwerp, merely that those agents would have had their eyes on other, likely more pressing matters.

I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV.

BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?

Doug

who sits contentedly enjoying both his retirement and a national holiday (the 4th of July)...


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-05 12:47:48
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
I have been following for the last few weeks but unfortunately haven't had time to write anything, but I have just started reading Matthew Lewis' Survival of the Princes in the Tower. I'm only about a third of the way through, but in the section on the Simnel rebellion, he did offer some interesting ideas suggesting that the focus of the rebellion may have been to restore Edward V, rather than Warwick. One reason why I hadn't really considered Edward V was because the Dublin King was referred to as Edward VI. However, Lewis says there is only one reference to this particular Edward's regnal number, which could have been a mistake. Ireland was prominent in the Simnel and Warbeck rebellions, so could Ireland have been a possible hiding place for the Princes?
Nico

On Thursday, 5 July 2018, 10:33:32 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, hope you had a good day!
My problem is I just don't believe that Warbeck was ROS - for a start he was short and we now know that even Richard without his scoliosis would have been quite tall for that time. So we'll have to agree to differ on that.
Brampton was in Portugal at the time of Bosworth and didn't return to England for 3 years. He seems to have travelled between Portugal and Bruges on both trade and diplomatic missions for the Portuguese kings. He left Bruges in May 1487 to live permanently in Portugal. Warbeck travelled with Brampton's wife to Portugal in Easter 1487. As far as is known he never travelled with Brampton himself.
All this and the chaos in Flanders from 1482 onwards is in detail in Ian Arthurson's book. Now I know there is some dispute about his access to records that were supposedly lost in bombing, but the general state of politics in that part of Europe is pretty well known. Portugal would have been a safer place to send anyone than Flanders.
Incidentally, I'm not against the 'Gipping theory'. I just think Richard would have wanted them somewhere he could keep his eye on them. There were enough adventurers - De Vere, HT, Jasper 'out there' already. H
On Wednesday, 4 July 2018, 16:56:27 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

While I see your points about Burgundy and France, I do wonder just how applicable they might be?

If Richard did send his eponymous nephew to some place in Flanders, as best we can determine with any certainty the one place he didn't send him was to Margaret's court. IOW, Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't placed anywhere where he'd be easily discovered as being Richard of Shrewsbury; on the contrary, he was, if the stories are true, placed in the home of a fairly well-to-do citizen.

Now, I'm not trying to impugn the efficacy of the French intelligence system of the late 15th century but, or so it seems to me, we'd be giving Louis and his minions 'way too much credit if we presumed that his intelligence-gathering network was so sweeping that the appearance of one pre-teen in a merchant's house in Flanders would come to their notice. FWIW, that alone is a major reason I tend to credit "Perkin" with being exactly who he claimed to be; his place of hiding had been one that wasn't under the usual scrutiny of Louis' agents and informers, something that certainly wouldn't have applied to Margaret's court, regardless of any power she did or didn't have. This is not to say that Louis didn't have agents in Tournai and Antwerp, merely that those agents would have had their eyes on other, likely more pressing matters.

I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV.

BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?

Doug

who sits contentedly enjoying both his retirement and a national holiday (the 4th of July)...


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-07 20:19:56
destamate

Hilary,

It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

That Portugal would have been safer, read "more out the way," may also have been why Warbeck/RoS wasn't sent there directly. Presuming it was RoS in Tournai/Antwerp, any message to his guardian/s would have only taken a week (presuming the weather in the Channel cooperated, of course!). Any communications with Portugal would have certainly taken longer. And that would work for messages going to England as well as coming from there. IOW, I can see where the nearness of Flanders, even with that region's problems, could easily outweigh the better safety placing RoS in pPortugal would provide. I do find it interesting that Warbeck and Brampton's wife left for Portugal after Easter 1487 and Brampton himself followed about a month later. I suppose it could be mere coincidence their travels occurred during the Simnel Rebellion; quite likely the major reason was the steadily encroaching French to the south (Artois and Picardy).

Another thought literally just occurred to me: Did Warbeck/RoS ever say when he was sent to Flanders? I'll have a look through what I have, but perhaps you (or anyone else) might have a date?

FWIW, it does seem to me that the "Gipping Theory" makes sense both in place and time. It would explain both the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter" and EW coming out of sanctuary in, I believe, March of 1484. The boys had to go somewhere and I can't think of any reason for Richard not allowing their mother to see them - as long as the meeting occurred somewhere out-of-the-way.

Doug

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-13 10:18:42
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, re the Flanders bit I'll have to look too.
I agree about Gipping. Richard relied on people who were loyal to him and John Howard certainly was, so it was a practical alternative to Yorkshire. Of course, given that one or both was alive in August 1485, the question is what happened after that.Again, if Richard relied on his loyal followers, HT relied on mummy. If they were alive the chances are that she would know where they were from her husband. So home or abroad? Again I would have thought home; much easier to control, no-one would know that better than HT.
I feel I need to re-read Baldwin, not because I believe Richard of Eastwell was one of them, but because he makes some interesting claims about HT's visits to Colchester. H
(sorry to have been so long replying - it's just been too hot to work!)
On Saturday, 7 July 2018, 20:20:02 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

That Portugal would have been safer, read "more out the way," may also have been why Warbeck/RoS wasn't sent there directly. Presuming it was RoS in Tournai/Antwerp, any message to his guardian/s would have only taken a week (presuming the weather in the Channel cooperated, of course!). Any communications with Portugal would have certainly taken longer. And that would work for messages going to England as well as coming from there. IOW, I can see where the nearness of Flanders, even with that region's problems, could easily outweigh the better safety placing RoS in pPortugal would provide. I do find it interesting that Warbeck and Brampton's wife left for Portugal after Easter 1487 and Brampton himself followed about a month later. I suppose it could be mere coincidence their travels occurred during the Simnel Rebellion; quite likely the major reason was the steadily encroaching French to the south (Artois and Picardy).

Another thought literally just occurred to me: Did Warbeck/RoS ever say when he was sent to Flanders? I'll have a look through what I have, but perhaps you (or anyone else) might have a date?

FWIW, it does seem to me that the "Gipping Theory" makes sense both in place and time. It would explain both the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter" and EW coming out of sanctuary in, I believe, March of 1484. The boys had to go somewhere and I can't think of any reason for Richard not allowing their mother to see them - as long as the meeting occurred somewhere out-of-the-way.

Doug

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-16 10:55:47
Nicholas Brown
Doug wrote: I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV...BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

I recently ordered two old articles from the Ricardian by Barrie Williams, one about Brampton and one about the Princes. He says that Rui de Sousa, a former Portuguese ambassador in Edward IV's time claimed that he had seen Warbeck when he arrived in Lisbon with Lady Brampton in 1487, and he was not the same person as Richard of Shrewsbury who he had seen only two years before. If de Sousa is telling the truth, then he last saw RoS in 1485. If so the question is where? If he was not at the Court with Richard III, the it would most likely have been with Brampton, probably in London, where Brampton owned a house or perhaps in Flanders where Brampton was involved with the wool trade. Whether his assertion that RoS and PW were not the same person needs to be viewed with caution because de Sousa was working for Ferdinand and Isabella at the time.

The article also made an interesting reference to a Portuguese history book that stated that Edward V died on May 23 1483, but RoS died violently. While that date is too early, it does resemble the de la Pole family tree that said that EV died on June 23 - still too early but both state the 23rd of the month and the Tower rescue attempt was July 23 and imply that the Princes died on different dates. If PW was RoS, he certainly died violently.

I am trying to dig up as much information about Brampton as I can. He's a fascinating and under researched character who admitted to having PW in his custody in the late 1480s, and the trouble with dismissing PW as an impostor is that there isn't any solid evidence to disprove his claim. If Richard thought at least one of the Princes was safest abroad, then Brampton may have been a good choice as he appears to have been a loyal servant of Edward and Richard since the 1470s. There is a listing of his achievements pre-Bosworth on girders.net. After Bosworth, he lived in Flanders for a few years, but eventually returned to Portugal, where he remained until his death in 1508. 1489, he received a general pardon from Henry VII, although his estates in Northamptonshire that he inherited from his first wife were returned to the Tresham family (who she must have been connected to in some way, although I can't quite figure out how - maybe Hilary would know). Although his second wife was also English, (Margaret Beaumont, sister of the Bishop of Bath and Wells), I don't think he returned to England much if at all, and his children all married into Portuguese noble families.
Brampton's life is difficult to pin down, especially the early part and there seems to be quite a lot of myth surrounding him. I had a look at the records of the Domus Convesorum and while there is a record of a 'Edward Brandon,' living there between 1468 and 1472, the only record of EIV being a godfather to a converted Jew was for a different man recorded as 'Edward of Westminster' who lived at the Domus for many years. 'Edward Brampton' is also listed as being there in 1488. It is generally assumed that the relationship between Edward and Brampton began due to the godfather relationship, but if it wasn't that, how did he come to EIV's attention and begin his illustrious career? Alcock and Morton served as Master of the Rolls (Wardens of the Domus) in 1471 and 1472, so perhaps he was introduced through them, and his association with Edward seems to have begun around this time. I am particularly curious about possible links with Morton. His pardon of 1489 refers him as a 'godson of EIV' and a Knight, but I can't find any record of him being knighted by EIV or Richard. The college of Arms does have a reference to Richard knighting many Northern men who aren't named individually, but Brampton didn't have any connections to the North. Perhaps he was a Portuguese hidalgo, and was generally referred to as a knight for this reason, and the godson rumour came from confusion with the the other Edward at the Domus. Brampton seems to have been an accomplished soldier and if he was a converted Jew, then it is more likely that he converted years before, probably as a child, as becoming a soldier or a knight was more or less impossible for Jews due to the Christian nature of military service in the middle ages, especially the oaths of fealty to knights. One Portuguese history says that he was the illegitimate son of a Portuguese nobleman, Fernan Rodrigues Alardo and a woman named Mariana who married a Jewish blacksmith. While not contemporary, it does seem to fit, as Brampton seems too comfortable with royalty and well connected to have come from humble origins, but seems to have some link to the Jewish community. He certainly had some credibility in Portugal or he wouldn't have been used in diplomatic missions.

Most of his achievements are in either in the Calendars of Patent or Fine rolls, and I would like to check the exact citations, but I can't find them online for 1471-1485. Does anyone know of any links?
Nico








On Friday, 13 July 2018, 10:21:32 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, re the Flanders bit I'll have to look too.
I agree about Gipping. Richard relied on people who were loyal to him and John Howard certainly was, so it was a practical alternative to Yorkshire. Of course, given that one or both was alive in August 1485, the question is what happened after that.Again, if Richard relied on his loyal followers, HT relied on mummy. If they were alive the chances are that she would know where they were from her husband. So home or abroad? Again I would have thought home; much easier to control, no-one would know that better than HT.
I feel I need to re-read Baldwin, not because I believe Richard of Eastwell was one of them, but because he makes some interesting claims about HT's visits to Colchester. H
(sorry to have been so long replying - it's just been too hot to work!)
On Saturday, 7 July 2018, 20:20:02 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

That Portugal would have been safer, read "more out the way," may also have been why Warbeck/RoS wasn't sent there directly. Presuming it was RoS in Tournai/Antwerp, any message to his guardian/s would have only taken a week (presuming the weather in the Channel cooperated, of course!). Any communications with Portugal would have certainly taken longer. And that would work for messages going to England as well as coming from there. IOW, I can see where the nearness of Flanders, even with that region's problems, could easily outweigh the better safety placing RoS in pPortugal would provide. I do find it interesting that Warbeck and Brampton's wife left for Portugal after Easter 1487 and Brampton himself followed about a month later. I suppose it could be mere coincidence their travels occurred during the Simnel Rebellion; quite likely the major reason was the steadily encroaching French to the south (Artois and Picardy).

Another thought literally just occurred to me: Did Warbeck/RoS ever say when he was sent to Flanders? I'll have a look through what I have, but perhaps you (or anyone else) might have a date?

FWIW, it does seem to me that the "Gipping Theory" makes sense both in place and time. It would explain both the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter" and EW coming out of sanctuary in, I believe, March of 1484. The boys had to go somewhere and I can't think of any reason for Richard not allowing their mother to see them - as long as the meeting occurred somewhere out-of-the-way.

Doug

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-16 12:03:39
Hilary Jones
Here's the CPR link Nico
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272138;view=2up;seq=470;size=150


You can get the two other for Edward's reign from the same place. The Fine Rolls should be on archive.org.
Have you got Arthurson? He's very hard on Brampton saying he was an adventurer who treated his wives quite badly and married them for their fortune. His main aim was to gain Portuguese citizenship, hence when he did, he had little need to return here as he was then working for the King of Portugal in a sort of ambassador role. Certainly Richard paid him a lot of money.
The '23' date is very interesting. I've never before considered whether Edward could have been killed accidentally during the Tower break-in, though I've often wondered if it did succeed.
BTW with regard to your earlier email re Gipping, it's interesting that Margaret Giggs originated from round there and John Clement was involved in at least one land dispute in Norfolk...H
On Monday, 16 July 2018, 10:55:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote: I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV...BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

I recently ordered two old articles from the Ricardian by Barrie Williams, one about Brampton and one about the Princes. He says that Rui de Sousa, a former Portuguese ambassador in Edward IV's time claimed that he had seen Warbeck when he arrived in Lisbon with Lady Brampton in 1487, and he was not the same person as Richard of Shrewsbury who he had seen only two years before. If de Sousa is telling the truth, then he last saw RoS in 1485. If so the question is where? If he was not at the Court with Richard III, the it would most likely have been with Brampton, probably in London, where Brampton owned a house or perhaps in Flanders where Brampton was involved with the wool trade. Whether his assertion that RoS and PW were not the same person needs to be viewed with caution because de Sousa was working for Ferdinand and Isabella at the time.

The article also made an interesting reference to a Portuguese history book that stated that Edward V died on May 23 1483, but RoS died violently. While that date is too early, it does resemble the de la Pole family tree that said that EV died on June 23 - still too early but both state the 23rd of the month and the Tower rescue attempt was July 23 and imply that the Princes died on different dates. If PW was RoS, he certainly died violently.

I am trying to dig up as much information about Brampton as I can. He's a fascinating and under researched character who admitted to having PW in his custody in the late 1480s, and the trouble with dismissing PW as an impostor is that there isn't any solid evidence to disprove his claim. If Richard thought at least one of the Princes was safest abroad, then Brampton may have been a good choice as he appears to have been a loyal servant of Edward and Richard since the 1470s. There is a listing of his achievements pre-Bosworth on girders.net. After Bosworth, he lived in Flanders for a few years, but eventually returned to Portugal, where he remained until his death in 1508. 1489, he received a general pardon from Henry VII, although his estates in Northamptonshire that he inherited from his first wife were returned to the Tresham family (who she must have been connected to in some way, although I can't quite figure out how - maybe Hilary would know). Although his second wife was also English, (Margaret Beaumont, sister of the Bishop of Bath and Wells), I don't think he returned to England much if at all, and his children all married into Portuguese noble families.
Brampton's life is difficult to pin down, especially the early part and there seems to be quite a lot of myth surrounding him. I had a look at the records of the Domus Convesorum and while there is a record of a 'Edward Brandon,' living there between 1468 and 1472, the only record of EIV being a godfather to a converted Jew was for a different man recorded as 'Edward of Westminster' who lived at the Domus for many years. 'Edward Brampton' is also listed as being there in 1488. It is generally assumed that the relationship between Edward and Brampton began due to the godfather relationship, but if it wasn't that, how did he come to EIV's attention and begin his illustrious career? Alcock and Morton served as Master of the Rolls (Wardens of the Domus) in 1471 and 1472, so perhaps he was introduced through them, and his association with Edward seems to have begun around this time. I am particularly curious about possible links with Morton. His pardon of 1489 refers him as a 'godson of EIV' and a Knight, but I can't find any record of him being knighted by EIV or Richard. The college of Arms does have a reference to Richard knighting many Northern men who aren't named individually, but Brampton didn't have any connections to the North. Perhaps he was a Portuguese hidalgo, and was generally referred to as a knight for this reason, and the godson rumour came from confusion with the the other Edward at the Domus. Brampton seems to have been an accomplished soldier and if he was a converted Jew, then it is more likely that he converted years before, probably as a child, as becoming a soldier or a knight was more or less impossible for Jews due to the Christian nature of military service in the middle ages, especially the oaths of fealty to knights. One Portuguese history says that he was the illegitimate son of a Portuguese nobleman, Fernan Rodrigues Alardo and a woman named Mariana who married a Jewish blacksmith. While not contemporary, it does seem to fit, as Brampton seems too comfortable with royalty and well connected to have come from humble origins, but seems to have some link to the Jewish community. He certainly had some credibility in Portugal or he wouldn't have been used in diplomatic missions.

Most of his achievements are in either in the Calendars of Patent or Fine rolls, and I would like to check the exact citations, but I can't find them online for 1471-1485. Does anyone know of any links?
Nico








On Friday, 13 July 2018, 10:21:32 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, re the Flanders bit I'll have to look too.
I agree about Gipping. Richard relied on people who were loyal to him and John Howard certainly was, so it was a practical alternative to Yorkshire. Of course, given that one or both was alive in August 1485, the question is what happened after that.Again, if Richard relied on his loyal followers, HT relied on mummy. If they were alive the chances are that she would know where they were from her husband. So home or abroad? Again I would have thought home; much easier to control, no-one would know that better than HT.
I feel I need to re-read Baldwin, not because I believe Richard of Eastwell was one of them, but because he makes some interesting claims about HT's visits to Colchester. H
(sorry to have been so long replying - it's just been too hot to work!)
On Saturday, 7 July 2018, 20:20:02 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

That Portugal would have been safer, read "more out the way," may also have been why Warbeck/RoS wasn't sent there directly. Presuming it was RoS in Tournai/Antwerp, any message to his guardian/s would have only taken a week (presuming the weather in the Channel cooperated, of course!). Any communications with Portugal would have certainly taken longer. And that would work for messages going to England as well as coming from there. IOW, I can see where the nearness of Flanders, even with that region's problems, could easily outweigh the better safety placing RoS in pPortugal would provide. I do find it interesting that Warbeck and Brampton's wife left for Portugal after Easter 1487 and Brampton himself followed about a month later. I suppose it could be mere coincidence their travels occurred during the Simnel Rebellion; quite likely the major reason was the steadily encroaching French to the south (Artois and Picardy).

Another thought literally just occurred to me: Did Warbeck/RoS ever say when he was sent to Flanders? I'll have a look through what I have, but perhaps you (or anyone else) might have a date?

FWIW, it does seem to me that the "Gipping Theory" makes sense both in place and time. It would explain both the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter" and EW coming out of sanctuary in, I believe, March of 1484. The boys had to go somewhere and I can't think of any reason for Richard not allowing their mother to see them - as long as the meeting occurred somewhere out-of-the-way.

Doug

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-17 11:26:50
Nicholas Brown

Thank Hilary for the link. I will take a look for the references to Edward Brampton/Brandon. First of all, I would like to check if all of them refer to the same person, because I have had my doubts, as did Cecil Roth initially and a number of other Jewish historians.

I have reserved a copy of Arthurson from the library. It has been a long time since I read it and it could do with another look. I can't remember what he had to say about Brampton, but some writers do have a negative slant on his character. He certainly earned a lot of money serving Richard, Edward and other Kings, but while he may have been a good diplomat, I'm sceptical that Richard would leave his nephew in the care of someone of questionable personal character who treated his wives cruelly. It is PW's appearance that makes me think he is someone from the house of York, but it is possible that Brampton nurtured the fantasies of an illegitimate son of Edward, Richard or Clarence, possibly by one of the Werbeque or Farou families. If PW picked up his information from working there, I don't think it happened without any input from Brampton himself. Perhaps he saw some benefit for his own ambitions as an ambassador.

I also think Gipping as a possibility, but I also wonder about what really happened during the Tower rescue. J-AH's Colchester document also suggets that EV was dead by the end of 1483, but isn't completely clear. I didn't know about Margaret Giggs being from around there, and I still think John Clement could have something to do with all this, but is of the next generation.
Nico


On Monday, 16 July 2018, 12:03:43 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Here's the CPR link Nico
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272138;view=2up;seq=470;size=150


You can get the two other for Edward's reign from the same place. The Fine Rolls should be on archive.org.
Have you got Arthurson? He's very hard on Brampton saying he was an adventurer who treated his wives quite badly and married them for their fortune. His main aim was to gain Portuguese citizenship, hence when he did, he had little need to return here as he was then working for the King of Portugal in a sort of ambassador role. Certainly Richard paid him a lot of money.
The '23' date is very interesting. I've never before considered whether Edward could have been killed accidentally during the Tower break-in, though I've often wondered if it did succeed.
BTW with regard to your earlier email re Gipping, it's interesting that Margaret Giggs originated from round there and John Clement was involved in at least one land dispute in Norfolk...H
On Monday, 16 July 2018, 10:55:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote: I also tend to wonder if that "Warbeck" back-story wasn't provided to cover up the more likely possibility that Richard had been placed with someone such as Sir Edward Brampton? The Warbeck family was safe in Flanders, but Brampton and his family, or someone like them, would be in much greater danger if they were to be associated with the younger son of Edward IV...BTW, going along with the idea of checking up on what various people did after Bosworth, do we know what Brampton, did?It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

I recently ordered two old articles from the Ricardian by Barrie Williams, one about Brampton and one about the Princes. He says that Rui de Sousa, a former Portuguese ambassador in Edward IV's time claimed that he had seen Warbeck when he arrived in Lisbon with Lady Brampton in 1487, and he was not the same person as Richard of Shrewsbury who he had seen only two years before. If de Sousa is telling the truth, then he last saw RoS in 1485. If so the question is where? If he was not at the Court with Richard III, the it would most likely have been with Brampton, probably in London, where Brampton owned a house or perhaps in Flanders where Brampton was involved with the wool trade. Whether his assertion that RoS and PW were not the same person needs to be viewed with caution because de Sousa was working for Ferdinand and Isabella at the time.

The article also made an interesting reference to a Portuguese history book that stated that Edward V died on May 23 1483, but RoS died violently. While that date is too early, it does resemble the de la Pole family tree that said that EV died on June 23 - still too early but both state the 23rd of the month and the Tower rescue attempt was July 23 and imply that the Princes died on different dates. If PW was RoS, he certainly died violently.

I am trying to dig up as much information about Brampton as I can. He's a fascinating and under researched character who admitted to having PW in his custody in the late 1480s, and the trouble with dismissing PW as an impostor is that there isn't any solid evidence to disprove his claim. If Richard thought at least one of the Princes was safest abroad, then Brampton may have been a good choice as he appears to have been a loyal servant of Edward and Richard since the 1470s. There is a listing of his achievements pre-Bosworth on girders.net. After Bosworth, he lived in Flanders for a few years, but eventually returned to Portugal, where he remained until his death in 1508. 1489, he received a general pardon from Henry VII, although his estates in Northamptonshire that he inherited from his first wife were returned to the Tresham family (who she must have been connected to in some way, although I can't quite figure out how - maybe Hilary would know). Although his second wife was also English, (Margaret Beaumont, sister of the Bishop of Bath and Wells), I don't think he returned to England much if at all, and his children all married into Portuguese noble families.
Brampton's life is difficult to pin down, especially the early part and there seems to be quite a lot of myth surrounding him. I had a look at the records of the Domus Convesorum and while there is a record of a 'Edward Brandon,' living there between 1468 and 1472, the only record of EIV being a godfather to a converted Jew was for a different man recorded as 'Edward of Westminster' who lived at the Domus for many years. 'Edward Brampton' is also listed as being there in 1488. It is generally assumed that the relationship between Edward and Brampton began due to the godfather relationship, but if it wasn't that, how did he come to EIV's attention and begin his illustrious career? Alcock and Morton served as Master of the Rolls (Wardens of the Domus) in 1471 and 1472, so perhaps he was introduced through them, and his association with Edward seems to have begun around this time. I am particularly curious about possible links with Morton. His pardon of 1489 refers him as a 'godson of EIV' and a Knight, but I can't find any record of him being knighted by EIV or Richard. The college of Arms does have a reference to Richard knighting many Northern men who aren't named individually, but Brampton didn't have any connections to the North. Perhaps he was a Portuguese hidalgo, and was generally referred to as a knight for this reason, and the godson rumour came from confusion with the the other Edward at the Domus. Brampton seems to have been an accomplished soldier and if he was a converted Jew, then it is more likely that he converted years before, probably as a child, as becoming a soldier or a knight was more or less impossible for Jews due to the Christian nature of military service in the middle ages, especially the oaths of fealty to knights. One Portuguese history says that he was the illegitimate son of a Portuguese nobleman, Fernan Rodrigues Alardo and a woman named Mariana who married a Jewish blacksmith. While not contemporary, it does seem to fit, as Brampton seems too comfortable with royalty and well connected to have come from humble origins, but seems to have some link to the Jewish community. He certainly had some credibility in Portugal or he wouldn't have been used in diplomatic missions.

Most of his achievements are in either in the Calendars of Patent or Fine rolls, and I would like to check the exact citations, but I can't find them online for 1471-1485. Does anyone know of any links?
Nico








On Friday, 13 July 2018, 10:21:32 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, re the Flanders bit I'll have to look too.
I agree about Gipping. Richard relied on people who were loyal to him and John Howard certainly was, so it was a practical alternative to Yorkshire. Of course, given that one or both was alive in August 1485, the question is what happened after that.Again, if Richard relied on his loyal followers, HT relied on mummy. If they were alive the chances are that she would know where they were from her husband. So home or abroad? Again I would have thought home; much easier to control, no-one would know that better than HT.
I feel I need to re-read Baldwin, not because I believe Richard of Eastwell was one of them, but because he makes some interesting claims about HT's visits to Colchester. H
(sorry to have been so long replying - it's just been too hot to work!)
On Saturday, 7 July 2018, 20:20:02 BST, destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

It's not so much that I'm a firm believer that Warbeck was RoS, as that I can't find enough evidence to support the idea the he definitely wasn't.

That Portugal would have been safer, read "more out the way," may also have been why Warbeck/RoS wasn't sent there directly. Presuming it was RoS in Tournai/Antwerp, any message to his guardian/s would have only taken a week (presuming the weather in the Channel cooperated, of course!). Any communications with Portugal would have certainly taken longer. And that would work for messages going to England as well as coming from there. IOW, I can see where the nearness of Flanders, even with that region's problems, could easily outweigh the better safety placing RoS in pPortugal would provide. I do find it interesting that Warbeck and Brampton's wife left for Portugal after Easter 1487 and Brampton himself followed about a month later. I suppose it could be mere coincidence their travels occurred during the Simnel Rebellion; quite likely the major reason was the steadily encroaching French to the south (Artois and Picardy).

Another thought literally just occurred to me: Did Warbeck/RoS ever say when he was sent to Flanders? I'll have a look through what I have, but perhaps you (or anyone else) might have a date?

FWIW, it does seem to me that the "Gipping Theory" makes sense both in place and time. It would explain both the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter" and EW coming out of sanctuary in, I believe, March of 1484. The boys had to go somewhere and I can't think of any reason for Richard not allowing their mother to see them - as long as the meeting occurred somewhere out-of-the-way.

Doug

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 01:16:46
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Thanks so very much Carol - yes it works!!
"But it is worrying because if you google yahoo group forums on R it just brings up the defunct one on the Society's page. It means any new person stands no chance. H"
Carol responds:

You're welcome. I'm glad it works. I think, but I'm not sure, that a member of any Yahoo group can scroll to the top of the page in any forum and find the Search Groups button. All they need to do is type "Richard III" where it says "Search Conversations" and find our most recent conversations. If they want to see the rest of the post, they have to join the group. Do we still have a membership calendar showing how many people joined and when? I don't see it at the moment but will look again.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 01:41:38
justcarol67
Apologies for the very belated response and stupid question. As usual, I'm behind in reading the posts and must have missed something. What is the KB 9 series in TNA? When I googled the phrase, I got something to do with wrestling!

I did find and bookmark the AALT home page. Thank you.

Carol


---In , <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

Hi,I'll have to make this very quick. May have snatched mo's on phone in next 4 was but no more - and no access to notes or sources.

Not too much should be read into apptmtm to commission of other & terminer in a lord's area of influence. Usually more a courtesy than a command. The way the full text of these commissions was written, only two of the king's justices were required to attend to make the quorum.
Also , this is the date the commission was given- the hearing may have been quite a bit later. So this in no way clashes with the hard evidence we have for Rivers being in Norfolk at this time.
The only way to know who actually sat on the commission (assuming it wasn't invalidated by Ed iv's death before it could take place) would be to find the records of the hearing(s), which if they have survived, will be in the KB 9 series in TNA, and hope they record the names of the panel.
Very many of the kB 9s have been digitised and can be found on the AALT (Anglo American Legal Tradition) website, but except for those few files which just contain the records of a single commission they have not been indexed so have to be trawled through.
It would be worth doing to be sure this hadn't prompted Rivers to head west. I can maybe look when I get home as I have been through some of the 1483 KB9s in the past.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1

2018-07-18 01:45:24
justcarol67
Doug wrote:Since hearing about henchmen I've tended to think that the boys were moved out of the Tower as members of some noble's entourage, deposited for a short while in some country house and then separate, because people would be searching for two boys. If there's any truth to the Tyrell legend that EW and her sons stayed at his country house, that would be the first step in hiding the boys."

Carol responds:

Especially given that Tyrrell was Richard's master of henchmen! What better way to hide the boys than disguise them as pages in his care?

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 02:25:42
mariewalsh2003
Not a stupid question. KB stands for King's Bench, and the KB9s are the records of oyer and terminer commissions, commissions of the peace and the like.

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 02:28:59
mariewalsh2003
Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 02:35:25
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"Not a stupid question. KB stands for King's Bench, and the KB9s are the records of oyer and terminer commissions, commissions of the peace and the like."

Carol responds: Thank you very much! C.

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 02:39:19
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?"

Carol responds:

I agree completely, especially about the banner. It looks like something from China, not medieval England!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-18 02:42:08
mariewalsh2003
Re Brampton/ Brandon , I'm confident they are the same person because Duarte Brandao is just Edward Brandon rendered into Portuguese. It's suggested he had to change his name I. England because of possible confusion with William Brandon's family. I also seem to recall that he stayed at the Domus Conversirum again during Henry VII's reign.

To my mind some of the negative spin on Brampton's career has been prettty low. There is, so far as I recall, no evidence at all, whatsoever, etc, that he mistreated his wives. All it isis that no record has been found of the death of his first wife, so some smart alec historian insisted he must have dumped her, perhaps illegally as there is no record of a divorce either. Ridiculous apology for reasoning imho. We have no actual record of the death of so many first wives. The game is, discredit Brampton and you discredit his protege. It's a game. Much of what passes for history is.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-18 03:00:34
mariewalsh2003
PS
I meant to add that, as I have read, the system in England at the time was that the king automatically stood godfather to Jews converting to Christianity. So if Edward Brampton was of Jewish birth, then there is no reason to doubt that Edward IV was his godfather.

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 09:41:30
Hilary Jones
I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H
On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 09:42:57
Hilary Jones
As you can see I've endorsed Marie's request to Neil. If we don't do something we will eventually wither ..... H
On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 01:16:52 BST, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:


"Thanks so very much Carol - yes it works!!
"But it is worrying because if you google yahoo group forums on R it just brings up the defunct one on the Society's page. It means any new person stands no chance. H"
Carol responds:

You're welcome. I'm glad it works. I think, but I'm not sure, that a member of any Yahoo group can scroll to the top of the page in any forum and find the Search Groups button. All they need to do is type "Richard III" where it says "Search Conversations" and find our most recent conversations. If they want to see the rest of the post, they have to join the group. Do we still have a membership calendar showing how many people joined and when? I don't see it at the moment but will look again.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-18 09:49:37
ricard1an
So Marie, do I understand correctly that Duarte Brandeo was his English name translated into Portugese not his Portugese name translated into English as Edward Brandon/Brampton. If so do we know what his Portugese name was before he came to England?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-18 10:06:25
mariewalsh2003
We only have evidence of what he called himself in Portugal once he was a Christian and a made man. Duarte is just Portuguese for Edward, the name almost certainly taken in honour of his godfather. His original first name would presumably have been something more popular amongst the Jewish community - an OT name.

Cecil Roth thought Brandao may have been his original surname, claiming it was a surname that existed amongst the Portuguese Jewish community of the period, but he gave no examples and I don't think even gave any references, so I'd very much like to know more about that. I am maybe a bit sceptical as Brampton seems to have been trying to distance himself from his roots when he returned to Portugal as a wealthy knight.

Likewise we don't know whether his second wife, Margaret Beamonda, as I think her surname occurs in Portuguese sources, was English or Portuguese. The name apparently could be either.

Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 11:30:54
Neil Trump
There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.
Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.
Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.
My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.
Regards,
Neil

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H
On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 12:20:51
Johanne Tournier

Hi, Neil 

I think Yahoogroups is TERRIBLE and would cheerfully endorse a move. I am on a Science Fiction list which is as active as this one (or even more, tho most of the messages are shorter), and it recently moved to a free service called Groups.io. It seems to be working flawlessly, and the listowner was able to move all the list archives, photos and such from Yahoogroups to groups.io without much difficulty. Don't ask me the details; all I know is that I didn't have to do anything to be switched over to the new service, although one would still have the option of leaving the Yahoogroup and joining the new list specifically, should one wish to do so.

IMHO, it would be helpful if something could be negotiated for information on this group and a link to be posted on the Richard III Society pages. I might modestly suggest a name change for the group when the move is made, too, to eliminate possible confusion that this group is officially endorsed by the Society. Just a suggestion.

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.

Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.

Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.

My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.

Regards,

Neil

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 12:39:22
Neil Trump
Yes, io is where I am looking at I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer.
With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise
My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2018, at 12:20, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

I think Yahoogroups is TERRIBLE and would cheerfully endorse a move. I am on a Science Fiction list which is as active as this one (or even more, tho most of the messages are shorter), and it recently moved to a free service called Groups.io. It seems to be working flawlessly, and the listowner was able to move all the list archives, photos and such from Yahoogroups to groups.io without much difficulty. Don't ask me the details; all I know is that I didn't have to do anything to be switched over to the new service, although one would still have the option of leaving the Yahoogroup and joining the new list specifically, should one wish to do so.

IMHO, it would be helpful if something could be negotiated for information on this group and a link to be posted on the Richard III Society pages. I might modestly suggest a name change for the group when the move is made, too, to eliminate possible confusion that this group is officially endorsed by the Society. Just a suggestion.

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.

Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.

Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.

My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.

Regards,

Neil

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-18 13:51:01
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:
To my mind some of the negative spin on Brampton's career has been pretty low. There is, so far as I recall, no evidence at all, whatsoever, etc, that he mistreated his wives. All it is that no record has been found of the death of his first wife, so some smart alec historian insisted he must have dumped her, perhaps illegally as there is no record of a divorce either. Ridiculous apology for reasoning imho. We have no actual record of the death of so many first wives. The game is, discredit Brampton and you discredit his protege. It's a game. Much of what passes for history is.
This is essentially why I'm trying to find out as much as I can about him. Some some historians including Arthurson and Wroe have made assumptions about him that reflect on his protege that may not be based on fact and create an unfair bias. It isn't just a question of character that could shed light on the story, but also who else Brampton's career and who else he was connected to.
There is a listing at the Domus Conversorum for an 'Edward Brandon' who lived there from 1468-72, with a hiatus around 1470. That would roughly coincide with the readeption, when he probably came to EIV's attention. Some sources say that he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and that he accompanied Richard to Norfolk in 1469. 'Edward Brampton' is listed for 1488, probably a brief visit. My guess is that these two Edwards are the same person, but no other resident of the Domus ever enjoyed such a stratospheric and sudden rise to wealth and power, so I wonder what he had to offer and who promoted him. The Masters of the Rolls who ran the Domus at the time were Robert Kirkeham, William Morland, John Alcock and John Morton. If his elevation came from Morton's association, then by 1483, he may have had divided loyalties. The listing of names at the Domus in the late 1400s seems to be a combination of converts as well as people with names from the gentry/nobility such as Beauchamp, Vaughan and Scales. The former group stay for many years, whereas the latter come and go. They could be employees of the Master of the Rolls (officially that wasn't allowed, but by that time there weren't enough converts to fills the Domus.) Imho, Brampton could have been some kind of diplomat of spy providing some sort of service.

If the King was automatically considered that godfather of all Jewish converts, then that could explain why he was called that, but Michael Adler who compiled that Domus records says that the personal involvement of the King or Queen was very rare, and Edward IV only personally sponsored 'Edward of Westminster' in 1461. I strongly doubt that Brampton was converted at the Domus. The formal military training that would enable him to command warships and fight at Barnet and Tewkesbury would have been off limits to him unless he had converted at an early age in Portugal, and he may not have been Jewish at all. The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true, as it would have given him links to both the nobility and the Jewish community, both connections from which he benefited. Whoever he was, he was too well connected to have come from humble origins as some sources suggest, and I can't imagine Richard using someone who wasn't respected in his own country to play a prominent role in his marriage negotiations.
As for Brampton's wives, it isn't clear who the first one was, although she is usually referred to as Isabel Pecche, but that doesn't seem right. The manors in Northamptonshire that he was granted in 1480 were lands associated with Sir Thomas Tresham who was execuated and attainted in 1471. They were Tresham mother Isabel's (nee Vaux) dower properties. Some sources say that she was married to Sir William Pecche, a prominent Yorkist, but he was alive after 1480. If Brampton married that Isabel, who was the widow of a different William Pecche, then that would support Arthurson's view of him as a fortune hunter as she would have been in her 70s. Alternatively, the properties could have been given to one of Isabel's granddaughters or nieces on her marriage to Brampton. He probably derived the name from the village of Brampton which was next to the main manor of Great Houghton.
His second wife was Margaret Beaumont whose identity has been ascertained from the will of her brother Thomas Beaumont, Archdeacon of Bath and Wells, who left a bequest to her, Brampton and their children in his will (1507). They appear to come from a cadet branch of the Beaumont family, (connections to Morton and MB perhaps?),but I can't find any evidence that she was an heiress worth taking advantage of and she seems to be the mother of his 6 children.
If Brampton were of good character, then it is quite possible that Richard would have entrusted him with Richard of Shrewsbury and James Tyrrell with Edward V. He also had links to the Gipping area through the wool trade. Alternatively, if he was enmeshed with Morton is some way, could he have been the 'certain Lord' who rescued Richard while EV perished in the Tower rescue attempt?
Nico



On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 10:06:29 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

We only have evidence of what he called himself in Portugal once he was a Christian and a made man. Duarte is just Portuguese for Edward, the name almost certainly taken in honour of his godfather. His original first name would presumably have been something more popular amongst the Jewish community - an OT name.

Cecil Roth thought Brandao may have been his original surname, claiming it was a surname that existed amongst the Portuguese Jewish community of the period, but he gave no examples and I don't think even gave any references, so I'd very much like to know more about that. I am maybe a bit sceptical as Brampton seems to have been trying to distance himself from his roots when he returned to Portugal as a wealthy knight.

Likewise we don't know whether his second wife, Margaret Beamonda, as I think her surname occurs in Portuguese sources, was English or Portuguese. The name apparently could be either.

Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 14:58:07
Johanne Tournier

Hi, Neil 

Since I said the switch on the Sci Fi Discussion list has worked flawlessly, I thought perhaps I would mention the one area where a few people have encountered problems. In the event any of the messages from the List get marked as SPAM, the recipient gets booted off the list. Here is a portion of the listowner, John T., which discusses this:

Just a quick notice to remind everyone that if a message from the group gets marked as SPAM the user is Automatically removed from the group. I have no control over it.

Today we lost another member because of this.

If you get messages tagged as Spam by your email provider, please be sure to mark them as "Not Spam" to train the Junk Mail processors to allow the messages through.

Thanks!

John set up a notification warning email that is sent out to all the members on the 20th. of the month to remind them of this. But personally it has not been a problem that I have encountered. So other than making sure that, once the new list is activated, one sends one's messages to the new list and not the old list on Yahoogroups, it really has been easy-peasy. 😊

Johanne

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 8:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

Yes, io is where I am looking at

I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer.

With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise

My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 12:20, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

I think Yahoogroups is TERRIBLE and would cheerfully endorse a move. I am on a Science Fiction list which is as active as this one (or even more, tho most of the messages are shorter), and it recently moved to a free service called Groups.io. It seems to be working flawlessly, and the listowner was able to move all the list archives, photos and such from Yahoogroups to groups.io without much difficulty. Don't ask me the details; all I know is that I didn't have to do anything to be switched over to the new service, although one would still have the option of leaving the Yahoogroup and joining the new list specifically, should one wish to do so.

IMHO, it would be helpful if something could be negotiated for information on this group and a link to be posted on the Richard III Society pages. I might modestly suggest a name change for the group when the move is made, too, to eliminate possible confusion that this group is officially endorsed by the Society. Just a suggestion.

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.

Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.

Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.

My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.

Regards,

Neil

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 15:23:56
Neil Trump
Yes, I have also been told of some odd quirks as well, I guess we can work through some of these problems

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2018, at 14:58, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

Since I said the switch on the Sci Fi Discussion list has worked flawlessly, I thought perhaps I would mention the one area where a few people have encountered problems. In the event any of the messages from the List get marked as SPAM, the recipient gets booted off the list. Here is a portion of the listowner, John T., which discusses this:

Just a quick notice to remind everyone that if a message from the group gets marked as SPAM the user is Automatically removed from the group. I have no control over it.

Today we lost another member because of this.

If you get messages tagged as Spam by your email provider, please be sure to mark them as "Not Spam" to train the Junk Mail processors to allow the messages through.

Thanks!

John set up a notification warning email that is sent out to all the members on the 20th. of the month to remind them of this. But personally it has not been a problem that I have encountered. So other than making sure that, once the new list is activated, one sends one's messages to the new list and not the old list on Yahoogroups, it really has been easy-peasy. =

Johanne

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 8:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

Yes, io is where I am looking at

I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer.

With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise

My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 12:20, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

I think Yahoogroups is TERRIBLE and would cheerfully endorse a move. I am on a Science Fiction list which is as active as this one (or even more, tho most of the messages are shorter), and it recently moved to a free service called Groups.io. It seems to be working flawlessly, and the listowner was able to move all the list archives, photos and such from Yahoogroups to groups.io without much difficulty. Don't ask me the details; all I know is that I didn't have to do anything to be switched over to the new service, although one would still have the option of leaving the Yahoogroup and joining the new list specifically, should one wish to do so.

IMHO, it would be helpful if something could be negotiated for information on this group and a link to be posted on the Richard III Society pages. I might modestly suggest a name change for the group when the move is made, too, to eliminate possible confusion that this group is officially endorsed by the Society. Just a suggestion.

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.

Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.

Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.

My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.

Regards,

Neil

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 23:14:06
justcarol67



Neil wrote:

"There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.
"Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with."
Carol responds:

As I recall, we experimented with another format some years ago and it didn't work out. I certainly don't want to go to Facebook or Twitter! We need to be able to archive old posts and have access to Files. I don't want to lose what we have, imperfect though it is.

Meanwhile, is there any way you can replace that ghastly dragon banner with something more Ricardian?

As for names, I would suggest Friends of Richard III, but then we'd be accused of failing to seek the truth objectively. Just the Richard III Forum would work. But we would need a clearly state group philosophy to deter trolls.

Thanks,
Carol

Re: June 1483

2018-07-18 23:26:47
justcarol67
*Must* the io messages be read from you email? One thing I like about the Yahoo site is that I can read the messages from the site without having to clear out my inbox every day--not to mention losing old messages.

Please, please don't choose an email only group!

Carol


Re: June 1483

2018-07-19 03:10:17
mariewalsh2003
I second this - I always read from the forum.

I also belong to a forum which uses XenForo forum software. I don't know how easy it is to run, but it is good to use. No restriction on length of message. Threads are clearly seoarated. Posts can also be liked without being replied to ( I do think that is useful otherwise a post that everyone agrees with may receive no feedback ).
Links can be placed in posts. Files can also be loaded, I think, but I'll check.
I get email alerts if someone responds to a post of mine, or if there is a new post on a thread I've previously contributed to.
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-19 03:16:17
Pamela Bain
I agree as well.
On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:10 PM, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I second this - I always read from the forum.

I also belong to a forum which uses XenForo forum software. I don't know how easy it is to run, but it is good to use. No restriction on length of message. Threads are clearly seoarated. Posts can also be liked without being replied to ( I do think that is useful otherwise a post that everyone agrees with may receive no feedback ).
Links can be placed in posts. Files can also be loaded, I think, but I'll check.
I get email alerts if someone responds to a post of mine, or if there is a new post on a thread I've previously contributed to.
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-19 09:43:11
Hilary Jones
Neil thanks for your quick response! I think your suggestions are good.
Re the name, I think we need to get away from Richard III Forum or even discussion group because google just boots you back to the old defunct one. It could have the word Forum in it, but not right next to Richard III, like Richard III research and discussion group. Otherwise, as you know, google will just trawl and take folks back to the old one. Anyone got any good ideas? Preferably something that doesn't sound exclusive or dull.
I love the idea of a Facebook page; it can reach so many. Again we'll need to be creative with the name. Many thanks again. H
On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 15:23:59 BST, Neil Trump neil.trump@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, I have also been told of some odd quirks as well, I guess we can work through some of these problems

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2018, at 14:58, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

Since I said the switch on the Sci Fi Discussion list has worked flawlessly, I thought perhaps I would mention the one area where a few people have encountered problems. In the event any of the messages from the List get marked as SPAM, the recipient gets booted off the list. Here is a portion of the listowner, John T., which discusses this:

Just a quick notice to remind everyone that if a message from the group gets marked as SPAM the user is Automatically removed from the group. I have no control over it.

Today we lost another member because of this.

If you get messages tagged as Spam by your email provider, please be sure to mark them as "Not Spam" to train the Junk Mail processors to allow the messages through.

Thanks!

John set up a notification warning email that is sent out to all the members on the 20th. of the month to remind them of this. But personally it has not been a problem that I have encountered. So other than making sure that, once the new list is activated, one sends one's messages to the new list and not the old list on Yahoogroups, it really has been easy-peasy. =

Johanne

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 8:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

Yes, io is where I am looking at

I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer.

With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise

My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 12:20, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:

Hi, Neil 

I think Yahoogroups is TERRIBLE and would cheerfully endorse a move. I am on a Science Fiction list which is as active as this one (or even more, tho most of the messages are shorter), and it recently moved to a free service called Groups.io. It seems to be working flawlessly, and the listowner was able to move all the list archives, photos and such from Yahoogroups to groups.io without much difficulty. Don't ask me the details; all I know is that I didn't have to do anything to be switched over to the new service, although one would still have the option of leaving the Yahoogroup and joining the new list specifically, should one wish to do so.

IMHO, it would be helpful if something could be negotiated for information on this group and a link to be posted on the Richard III Society pages. I might modestly suggest a name change for the group when the move is made, too, to eliminate possible confusion that this group is officially endorsed by the Society. Just a suggestion.

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

From: <>
Sent: July 18, 2018 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483

There is another option which is to move away from yahoo to something that works in the same way and has all the features we have now plus from what I understand those that yahoo used to have. I am personally in favour of this move.

Next we need to see what do we call ourselves, perhaps a few suggestions and see what we have and choose one that we all are happy with.

Then it will be a case of how do we promote ourselves, I have an idea but will offer it a bit later and see what everyone else feels about it.

My view on yahoo is that I suspect it is on limited time for all groups not just us so this is probably a good time to look at overhauling ourselves.

Regards,

Neil

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 Jul 2018, at 09:41, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I second that! You see you have to know it's a Yahoo group and even if you google Yahoo Richard iii forum it comes up with the old one. A new name and banner would be the answer. So yes please Neil!! H

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 02:29:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Well , sadly this is no longer an RIii Soc group, so it's all very confusing. It needs not just a new link but a new name, an appropriate banner ( which I'm assured can be done) and some publicity. Neil, please, are you out there?
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-19 09:43:53
Hilary Jones
That sounds brilliant! H
On Thursday, 19 July 2018, 03:10:24 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I second this - I always read from the forum.

I also belong to a forum which uses XenForo forum software. I don't know how easy it is to run, but it is good to use. No restriction on length of message. Threads are clearly seoarated. Posts can also be liked without being replied to ( I do think that is useful otherwise a post that everyone agrees with may receive no feedback ).
Links can be placed in posts. Files can also be loaded, I think, but I'll check.
I get email alerts if someone responds to a post of mine, or if there is a new post on a thread I've previously contributed to.
Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-07-19 17:24:55
justcarol67

Hilary wrote :

"I love the idea of a Facebook page; it can reach so many. Again we'll need to be creative with the name."

Carol responds:

I can see a Facebook page as a way to alert people to the forum/discussion group, but certainly not as a substitute as it's impossible for an old fogey like me to follow the discussion (and, of course, the Society has its own very restricted Facebook page). I actually hate Facebook and avoid it as far as possible.

As for the name of the group, it has to have Richard III in it. Maybe we could do like Paul Murray Kendall and spell it out--"Richard the Third"--which might keep it from being "bumped back to the old group." (Hope I quoted that correctly as I've deleted that part of your post.)

By the way, I hope we find a forum that doesn't leave trails of old posts hanging on the new ones, if you know what I mean.

And, again, please don't make it an email only group.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-07-19 18:48:38
Doug Stamate
Neil, If we must leave Yahoo groups, I suppose we must. Might I suggest simply dropping the word Society from our current title and being known as \The Richard III Forum? Pity about the Society's attitude towards links; it only leaves one with the impression that the powers-that-be there feel Richard belongs to them  and them alone. I don't use Facebook but using it to direct people here (or wherever we end up) is a good idea. Doug Neil wrote: Yes, io is where I am looking at I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer. With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-07-19 19:34:11
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I recently ordered two old articles from the Ricardian by Barrie Williams, one about Brampton and one about the Princes. He says that Rui de Sousa, a former Portuguese ambassador in Edward IV's time claimed that he had seen Warbeck when he arrived in Lisbon with Lady Brampton in 1487, and he was not the same person as Richard of Shrewsbury who he had seen only two years before. If de Sousa is telling the truth, then he last saw RoS in 1485. If so the question is where? If he was not at the Court with Richard III, the it would most likely have been with Brampton, probably in London, where Brampton owned a house or perhaps in Flanders where Brampton was involved with the wool trade. Whether his assertion that RoS and PW were not the same person needs to be viewed with caution because de Sousa was working for Ferdinand and Isabella at the time. Doug here: de Sousa's account sounds very strange, to say the least! As you ask, just where did de Sousa see RoS in 1485? Do we know where de Sousa was in 1485? That might help, if only in narrowing down possible locations for RoS. Also, do we have a date for when de Sousa made this claim? Was it any time near the marriage negotiations between Spain and England over Arthur's marriage to Catherine of Aragon? The major problem I have with de Sousa's story is, of course, the date. The earliest we have for the boys' disappearance is just after the October Rebellion in 1483 and the latest would be around Easter of 1484, neither matching de Sousa's claim of 1485. Nor, FWIW, can I see Brampton, if it indeed RoS had been placed with him, telling all and sundry, even the Ambassador from Portugal, that RoS was in his care!
Nico continued: The article also made an interesting reference to a Portuguese history book that stated that Edward V died on May 23 1483, but RoS died violently. While that date is too early, it does resemble the de la Pole family tree that said that EV died on June 23 - still too early but both state the 23rd of the month and the Tower rescue attempt was July 23 and imply that the Princes died on different dates. If PW was RoS, he certainly died violently. Doug here: Do we have any knowledge of where that reference about 23 May, 1483 originated? Because the thought occurred to me that, if the original reference was in, say, Latin or French, and then translated into Portuguese, there might have occurred much the same as that which happened to the translation of Mancini's report, where occupation (or something just as neutral) became usurpation. Do we have a date, even an approximate one, for that date in the de la Pole family tree was placed there? It might make all the difference whether the date was written in after Bosworth or Stoke or even the November 1499 executions.
Nico continued: I am trying to dig up as much information about Brampton as I can. He's a fascinating and under researched character who admitted to having PW in his custody i n the late 1480s, and the trouble with dismissing PW as an impostor is that there isn't any solid evidence to disprove his claim. If Richard thought at least one of the Princes was safest abroad, then Brampton may have been a good choice as he appears to have been a loyal servant of Edward and Richard since the 1470s. There is a listing of his achievements pre-Bosworth on girders.net. After Bosworth, he lived in Flanders for a few years, but eventually returned to Portugal, where he remained until his death in 1508. 1489, he received a general pardon from Henry VII, although his estates in Northamptonshire that he inherited from his first wife were returned to the Tresham family (who she must have been connected to in some way, although I can't quite figure out how - maybe Hilary would know). Although his second wife was also English, (Margaret Beaumont, sister of the Bishop of Bath and Wells), I don't think he returned to England much if at all, and his children all married into Portuguese noble families. Doug here: Sounds to me as if Richard, the king, had plans for his illegitimate nephew that would have been appropriate for an illegitimate son of a king. He was to be raised in an upper-middle class family by a loyal supporter while also, with luck, learning the ins and outs of the most important economic sector of the country  the wool trade. I don't see that as disparaging, but I don't know what EW might have thought of it. Nico concluded:</ div> Brampton's life is difficult to pin down, especially the early part and there seems to be quite a lot of myth surrounding him. I had a look at the records of the Domus Convesorum and while there is a record of a 'Edward Brandon,' living there between 1468 and 1472, the only record of EIV being a godfather to a converted Jew was for a different man recorded as 'Edward of Westminster' who lived at the Domus for many years. 'Edward Brampton' is also listed as being there in 1488. It is generally assumed that the relationship between Edward and Brampton began due to the godfather relationship, but if it wasn't that, how did he come to EIV's attention and begin his illustrious career? Alcock and Morton served as Master of the Rolls (Wardens of the Domus) in 1471 and 1472, so perhaps he was introduced through them, and his association with Edward seems to have begun around this time. I am particularly curious about possible links with Morton. His pardon of 1489 refers him as a 'g odson of EIV' and a Knight, but I can't find any reco rd of him being knighted by EIV or Richard. The college of Arms does have a reference to Richard knighting many Northern men who aren't named individually, but Brampton didn't have any connections to the North. Perhaps he was a Portuguese hidalgo, and was generally referred to as a knight for this reason, and the godson rumour came from confusion with the the other Edward at the Domus. Brampton seems to have been an accomplished soldier and if he was a converted Jew, then it is more likely that he converted years before, probably as a child, as becoming a soldier or a knight was more or less impossible for Jews due to the Christian nature of military service in the middle ages, especially the oaths of fealty to knights. One Portuguese history says that he was the illegitimate son of a Portuguese nobleman, Fernan Rodrigues Alardo and a woman named Mariana who married a Jewish blacksmith. While not contemporary, it does seem to fit, as Brampton seems too comfortable with royalty and well connected to have come from humble origins, but seems to have some link to the Jewish community. He certainly had some credibility in Portugal or he wouldn't have been used in diplomatic missions. Most of his achievements are in either in the Calendars of Patent or Fine rolls, and I would like to check the exact citations, but I can't find them online for 1471-1485. Does anyone know of any links? Doug here: My understanding is that the king stood godfather to all converted Jews, so the relationship likely began there. Perhaps there was some sort of ceremony and Brampton, in some way or another, came to Edward's attention during it? Another possibility is that, in some manner or another, Brampton assisted Edward during the Re-Adeption, officially converted after Edward returned to the throne, and was subsequently knighted for that service. Perhaps the service Brampton provided had something to do with raising money or men or transport while Edward was in Flanders? We also have to remember that merchants, especially those moving goods between countries via ships, needed military skills as much as they needed those skills more usually associated with business. As trading usually paid better, becoming a merchant moving goods from, say Flanders to the Iberian peninsula and back, would require both sets of skills, wouldn't it? And those trips could also make the merchant/soldier available for diplomatic missions. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-07-19 21:31:08
ALISON PRATER
The Richard III Forum sounds good. Perhaps we could run the two groups for a while and see if the new one automatically takes over from this one.

Alison

On 19 July 2018 at 18:48 "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

 

      Neil, If we must leave Yahoo groups, I suppose we must. Might I suggest simply dropping the word “Society” from our current title and being known as \“The Richard III Forum”? Pity about the Society’s attitude towards links; it only leaves one with the impression that the “powers-that-be” there feel Richard belongs to them – and them alone. I don’t use Facebook but using it to direct people here (or wherever we end up) is a good idea. Doug   Neil wrote: “Yes, io is where I am looking at I have actually created the current name with io for the transfer but if everyone would like a new name then I can create it and look at doing a bulk transfer. With regards to the society adding it on the r3 website, then this will not happen as they see Facebook as the primary platform for discussions when most people here say other wise My idea would be to create a Facebook page which promotes the new site, basically it used as a redirection page”    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


 
 

Re: June 1483

2018-07-20 05:16:43
mariewalsh2003
Absolutely agree. I would not join a Facebook group.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-20 05:30:07
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,

What you say about the Archdeacin's will is very interesting. If I've ever read that before, then I've forgotten it. I'll take a look when I get home.

I'm puzzled by claims that Brampton fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury in the general sense that I've not seen his name in any contemporary accounts of those battles. Do you know what sources are given for this?
Likewise for 1469, the only reference I can think of to Richard's men on that campaign is in the Paston Letters, where it says that Bernard, Barney, Broom and W. Calthorpe' joined his retinue whilst he was in Norfolk. Either Bernard or Barney could have been misidentified as Brandon or Brampton, I suppose.
I'll have to take a look at Brampton again as soon as time permits.

What does seem possible, though, is that Richard and Brampton knew each other before 1483. Richard trusted him enough to put him in charge of the ships he sent against the Woodville fleet, and knighted him after he became king.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-20 10:08:19
Nicholas Brown
Hi Marie,
There is a list of Brampton's achievements on girders.net. From 1472 onwards they are confirmed by the CPR and CFR, the sources for the earlier ones are from secondary sources. The references to Barnet and Tewkesbury are from St. Aubin (p.115), and Paul Murray Kendall says that he assisted with the Robin of Redesdale rebellion and accompanied Richard to Norfolk in 1469 (p92 and 187). Barrie Williams mentions Cecil Roth suggestion that Brampton may have accompanied Anthony Woodville on a diplomatic mission to Lisbon in 1472, but this is uncertain. It could be true, and it may have been how he gained favour with Edward. He left the Domus Conversorum around this time, and may have been recommended by John Alcock who was close to Edward and had recently been Warden of the Domus. I think it was also Roth who said that Brampton was at Picquigny with Edward in 1475.
The extract from Thomas Beaumont's will reads:
"To Maister Edward Brampton an hope of golde to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of golde with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, i.e., Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s. with this scripture to be made withinin everyche of the same hoopes, "ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these same rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messynger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."[see WF Weaver, Somerset Medieval Wills, 1901]Does anyone know who Thomas and his sister are within the larger Beaumont family?

He certainly gave Edward and Richard consistently good service from 1472 onwards, but since I don't have PMK or St. Aubin to hand, I can't check their sources for any service prior to that. However, there is a record that he was absent from the Domus around the relevant time, so I wouldn't rule it out.

Nico





On Friday, 20 July 2018, 05:30:12 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,

What you say about the Archdeacin's will is very interesting. If I've ever read that before, then I've forgotten it. I'll take a look when I get home.

I'm puzzled by claims that Brampton fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury in the general sense that I've not seen his name in any contemporary accounts of those battles. Do you know what sources are given for this?
Likewise for 1469, the only reference I can think of to Richard's men on that campaign is in the Paston Letters, where it says that Bernard, Barney, Broom and W. Calthorpe' joined his retinue whilst he was in Norfolk. Either Bernard or Barney could have been misidentified as Brandon or Brampton, I suppose.
I'll have to take a look at Brampton again as soon as time permits.

What does seem possible, though, is that Richard and Brampton knew each other before 1483. Richard trusted him enough to put him in charge of the ships he sent against the Woodville fleet, and knighted him after he became king.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-07-20 17:57:28
justcarol67



Alison wrote:

"The Richard III Forum sounds good. Perhaps we could run the two groups for a while and see if the new one automatically takes over from this one."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. I don't think we should close this one prematurely. We need it as a fallback in case the new one doesn't work out.

Carol

Re: June 1483

2018-07-20 18:00:18
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"Absolutely agree. I would not join a Facebook group."

Carol responds:

Nor would I.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-07-20 19:12:00
Nicholas Brown

I agree with that too. The Richard III Forum sounds good and I hope we can keep this forum as an archive with a link to the new forum. Facebook may be OK as an adjunct to promote the forum, but like the other regular posters I'm not a big user of it. As for the the RIII Society, I joined the forum before the Society having found it when I googled a question about the Earl of Warwick, Easy access through google may bring in more people than a listing in the Society's bulletin. Maybe google groups would give it an advantage.

Nico
On Friday, 20 July 2018, 17:57:31 GMT+1, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:




Alison wrote:

"The Richard III Forum sounds good. Perhaps we could run the two groups for a while and see if the new one automatically takes over from this one."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. I don't think we should close this one prematurely. We need it as a fallback in case the new one doesn't work out.

Carol

Re: June 1483

2018-07-21 07:50:51
Pamela Furmidge
I hope that an alternative forum is found as there is such a wealth of information among members and some very good discussions where important developments are teased out. Is there any indication when the change will be made as the holiday season is upon us in Europe.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-07-21 17:30:45
Doug Stamate
Nico, You wrote in the third paragraph of your reply to Marie (which I've left attached below) that The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true... My understanding that whether or not one was Jewish was decided via the person's mother, not their father. So it seems likely that if he was the illegitimate offspring of some nobleman, the woman was Jewish. I'm not certain how the general Portuguese attitude towards Jews was in the mid-15th century, but it also doesn't seem likely that a Catholic nobleman would allow his son, even an illegitimate one, to be raised as a Jew if both parents were Catholic. I don't know if it helps or not, but thought you might like to know. FWIW, it's also crossed my mind that perhaps we've been dividing up who did what too finely. What do you think of the idea that both Brampton and Tyrrell were involved in moving the boys from the Tower? Tyrell mixes the boys in with the other pages-in-training and Brampton provides to transport, a vessel, to move them out of London? We keep hearing that at least one boy disappeared via a ship, and presumably died, but what if that's merely a garbled version of the boys being moved via ship and not being seen in the Tower again? I can easily imagine several possible conversations between people at the Tower on the subject of where the boys went. Something along the lines of Well, they were here on X, then that ship (really more likely a large boat) arrived and a bunch of people left. And then that evolves into the boys going onto a ship and that evolves, when there's no sign of them, into one or both drowning. Just a thought. Doug Nico's response to Marie follows: Marie wrote:
To my mind some of the negative spin on Brampton's career has been pretty low. There is, so far as I recall, no evidence at all, whatsoever, etc, that he mistreated his wives. All it is that no record has been found of the death of his first wife, so some smart alec historian insisted he must have dumped her, perhaps illegally as there is no record of a divorce either. Ridiculous apology for reasoning imho. We have no actual record of the death of so many first wives. The game is, discredit Brampton and you discredit his protege. It's a game. Much of what passes for history is. This is essentially why I'm trying to find out as much as I can about him. Some some historians including Arthurson and Wroe have made assumptions about him that reflect on his protege that may not be based on fact and create an unfair bias. It isn't just a question of character that could shed light on the story, but also who else Brampton's career and who else he was connected to. There is a listing at the Domus Conversorum for an 'Edward Brandon' who lived there from 1468-72, with a hiatus around 1470. That would roughly coincide with the readeption, when he probably came to EIV's attention. Some sources say that he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and that he accompanied Richard to Norfolk in 1469. 'Edward Brampton' is listed for 1488, probably a brief visit. My guess is that these two Edwards are the same person, but no other resident of the Domus ever enjoyed such a stratospheric and sudden rise to wealth and power, so I wonder what he had to offer and who promoted him. The Masters of the Rolls who ran the Domus at the time were Robert Kirkeham, William Morland, John Alcock and John Morton. If his elevation came from Morton's association, then by 1483, he may have had divided loyalties. The listing of names at the Domus in the late 1400s seems to be a combination of converts as well as people with names from the gentry/nobility such as Beauchamp, Vaughan and Scales. The former group stay for many years, whereas the latter come and go. They could be employees of the Master of the Rolls (officially that wasn't allowed, but by that time there weren't enough converts to fills the Domus.) Imho, Brampton could have been some kind of diplomat of spy providing some sort of service. If the King was automatically considered that godfather of all Jewish converts, then that could explain why he was called that, but Michael Adler who compiled that Domus records says that the personal involvement of the King or Queen was very rare, and Edward IV only personally sponsored 'Edward of Westminster' in 1461. I strongly doubt that Brampton was converted at the Domus. The formal military training that would enable him to command warships and fight at Barnet and Tewkesbury would have been off limits to him unless he had converted at an early age in Portugal, and he may not have been Jewish at all. The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true, as it would have given him links to both the nobility and the Jewish community, both connections from which he benefited. Whoever he was, he was too well connected to have come from humble origins as some sources suggest, and I can't imagine Richard using someone who wasn't respected in his own country to play a prominent role in his marriage negotiations. As for Brampton's wives, it isn't clear who the first one was, although she is usually referred to as Isabel Pecche, but that doesn't seem right. The manors in Northamptonshire that he was granted in 1480 were lands associated with Sir Thomas Tresham who was execuated and attainted in 1471. They were Tresham mother Isabel's (nee Vaux) dower properties. Some sources say that she was married to Sir William Pecche, a prominent Yorkist, but he was alive after 1480. If Brampton married that Isabel, who was the widow of a different William Pecche, then that would support Arthurson's view of him as a fortune hunter as she would have been in her 70s. Alternatively, the properties could have been given to one of Isabel's granddaughters or nieces on her marriage to Brampton. He probably derived the name from the village of Brampton which was next to the main manor of Great Houghton. His second wife was Margaret Beaumont whose identity has been ascertained from the will of her brother Thomas Beaumont, Archdeacon of Bath and Wells, who left a bequest to her, Brampton and their children in his will (1507). They appear to come from a cadet branch of the Beaumont family, (connections to Morton and MB perhaps?),but I can't find any evidence that she was an heiress worth taking advantage of and she seems to be the mother of his 6 children. If Brampton were of good character, then it is quite possible that Richard would have entrusted him with Richard of Shrewsbury and James Tyrrell with Edward V. He also had links to the Gipping area through the wool trade. Alternatively, if he was enmeshed with Morton is some way, could he have been the 'certain Lord' who rescued Richard while EV perished in the Tower rescue attempt?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-22 14:46:21
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,
This is just a brief response on the 1460s and early 1470s stuff, from what I've been able to get a look at.

1.Kendall is very vague about his source for the 1469 campaign but does let slip that the ref is merely to Brampton' with no first name. I think it comes from the Paston Letters, where Young JO lists the names of members of the King's party whom he entertained to dinner at his mum's house in Norwich. Thing is, there was an English family of Bramptons known to the Pastons (Johns at this period) so if an unrelated Brampton was meant JP would have needed to give his whole name. So I really don't think this is at all likely to be our Edward.

2. I suspect the idea he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury comes from his rewards ( property and denization) in Oct 1472, which mention his good service in various battles, though these are not named. He had been commissioned in summer 1472 to go to sea against rebels, so that probably resulted in at least one sea battle. I can verify whether this is the only source for battles of B & T when I get to look st St. Aubyn.

3. He cannot have gone to Portugal with Rivers in 1473, both because the CPR shows he was serving the king directly off the English coast and because Rivers never made it to Portugal - he was washed ashore in Brittsny and stayed there until he retirned to England in December.

4. Edward Brampton was definitely a converted Jew and lived st the Domus during the 1470s. I found I have photos which I took some yrs back of an exchequer file from 1475, and one of the items deals with Morton's takeover of the Domus and what moneys were owing on it's accounts. This lists three conversi dwelling there who were each owed one year's pension. They included Edward of Westminster and Edward Brampton - spelled like that.

Will look at the Beaumonts whenever I can.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-07-23 11:52:56
Nicholas Brown
Hi, Doug, sorry to have taken a while to get back to you. I had to find the time to check a few things.

Doug wrote:
"de Sousa's account sounds very strange, to say the least! As you ask, just where did de Sousa see RoS in 1485? Do we know where de Sousa was in 1485? That might help, if only in narrowing down possible locations for RoS. Also, do we have a date for when de Sousa made this claim? Was it any time near the marriage negotiations between Spain and England over Arthur's marriage to Catherine of Aragon?...The major problem I have with de Sousa's story is, of course, the date. The earliest we have for the boys' disappearance is just after the October Rebellion in 1483 and the latest would be around Easter of 1484, neither matching de Sousa's claim of 1485. Nor, FWIW, can I see Brampton, if it indeed RoS had been placed with him, telling all and sundry, even the Ambassador from Portugal, that RoS was in his care!
The article isn't specific about where he was on specific dates, only that de Sousa seems to have remained ambassador to England until 1489. The source of the claim that he had seen Richard of Shrewsbury two years before he came to Portugal is a letter from Ferdinand and Isabella to Henry VII dated April 14 1496. They were hoping to make an alliance with England and hoped to outdo Charles VIII's who claimed that PW was the son of a barber and offered to produce PW's parents. According to the letter, Rui de Sousa 'was acquainted with the matter, and is a person of authority and good faith. Having been ambassador to England, he knew the Duke of York very well, and has seen him there. Two years later he saw this other person in Portugal.' The implication was that de Sousa was well acquainted with what RoS looked like.

On April 25 1496, both Rui de Sousa and Brampton gave evidence at Setubal and both implied that the Princes were dead. De Sousa said that he had seen RoS with his mother and one of his sisters, but didn't give a date, then said that he had heard that the Princes had been imprisoned in a fortress where they died of 'forced bleeding.' He said that he saw PW in Portugal in the service of a knight named Pero Vaz da Cunha, once as late as November 1491, and he was not the same person. Not much specificity here, but if he saw PW in Portugal two years after seeing RoS in England, de Sousa may have seen him well into Henry VII's reign, especially if he is referring to the 1491 sighting.

Brampton testified that 'it was the worst evil in the World' that the Princes had been killed, but doesn't give any other details. His account of who PW is similar to the unconvincing story given in the confession, but he names his father as Bernal Uberque, rather than Jean. There was no Bernal Werbeque, but this sounds like a mispelling of Noel, who was Jean's brother. If Brampton mentioned a person who was not associated with the story until the Tournai records were examined centuries later, that suggests his familiarity with the Werbeque family, and imho makes him the most likely instigator of how they were brought in. Brampton was a ship's captain and Noel Werbeque was maker of ship's equipment. Maybe they knew each other well, and Brampton, whose best interests lay with keeping in favour with the King of Portugal/Ferdinand and Isabella offered to pay him off if he claimed to be PW's father, but ultimately it was Jean who agreed to take on the role. The final witness at Setubal was a Court herald who said he met 'John Osbeck' in Tournai asking about his son, but there is something about this encounter that appears staged.

Do we have any knowledge of where that reference about 23 May, 1483 originated? Because the thought occurred to me that, if the original reference was in, say, Latin or French, and then translated into Portuguese, there might have occurred much the same as that which happened to the translation of Mancini's report, where occupation (or something just as neutral) became usurpation...
Do we have a date, even an approximate one, for that date in the de la Pole family tree was placed there? It might make all the difference whether the date was written in after Bosworth or Stoke or even the November 1499 executions...
Sounds to me as if Richard, the king, had plans for his illegitimate nephew that would have been appropriate for an illegitimate son of a king. He was to be raised in an upper-middle class family by a loyal supporter while also, with luck, learning the ins and outs of the most important economic sector of the country  the wool trade. I don't see that as disparaging, but I don't know what EW might have thought of it.

The reference to 23 May is from a Portuguese book published in 1735 called Historia Geneaologica by Antonio Caetano de Sousa. I Some of his dates are a little off, but according to Barrie Williams, not too far off. However, some things can get lost in translation and over a few hundred years and May 23 1483 is too early. The de la Pole family tree is probably early 1500s judging from the clothes that the people in it are shown wearing.
Placing the Princes with loyal supporters with a view to introducing him to the wool trade does make sense. It wouldn't have been what he had been raised to expect, but it was lucrative and prospects for illegitimate sons were different from legitimate ones. I have always suspected that John of Gloucester was the merchant from the Calais staple that HT pardoned in 1504.

Perhaps the service Brampton provided had something to do with raising money or men or transport while Edward was in Flanders? We also have to remember that merchants, especially those moving goods between countries via ships, needed military skills as much as they needed those skills more usually associated with business. As trading usually paid better, becoming a merchant moving goods from, say Flanders to the Iberian peninsula and back, would require both sets of skills, wouldn't it? And those trips could also make the merchant/soldier available for diplomatic missions.

That may be true. His absence from the Domus appears to have coincided with Edward being in Flanders. He may also have had contacts for lending money. What we know about Brampton in the early 1470s was that he was an experienced ship's Captain and it can be assumed that he had some links to the Flemish wool since one of his rewards was a license to import it. I think you are right that someone in his position would have some combat skills, as they would face some dangerous situations. Also, Jews did defend their own communities from attack. What made me question his conversion date is that he would not be allowed to be apprenticed to a Knight to give him the military training for battles such as Barnet or Tewkesbury. However, if those sources are incorrect and he wasn't there that becomes irrelevant.

My understanding that whether or not one was Jewish was decided via the person's mother, not their father. So it seems likely that if he was the illegitimate offspring of some nobleman, the woman was Jewish. I'm not certain how the general Portuguese attitude towards Jews was in the mid-15th century, but it also doesn't seem likely that a Catholic nobleman would allow his son, even an illegitimate one, to be raised as a Jew if both parents were Catholic. I don't know if it helps or not, but thought you might like to know. FWIW, it's also crossed my mind that perhaps we've been dividing up who did what too finely. What do you think of the idea that both Brampton and Tyrrell were involved in moving the boys from the Tower? Tyrell mixes the boys in with the other pages-in-training and Brampton provides to transport, a vessel, to move them out of London? We keep hearing that at least one boy disappeared via a ship, and presumably died, but what if that's merely a garbled version of the boys being moved via ship and not being seen in the Tower again? I can easily imagine several possible conversations between people at the Tower on the subject of where the boys went. Something along the lines of Well, they were here on X, then that ship (really more likely a large boat) arrived and a bunch of people left. And then that evolves into the boys going onto a ship and that evolves, when there's no sign of them, into one or both drowning. Just a thought.
That is part of what made me question Brampton's 'jewishness,' along with the claims that he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury (I can't imagine him joining in unless it was as a knight.) However, as Marie says, the sources may not be correct. Since Judaism is passed through the maternal line, I would have thought that Brampton would not have been raised as a Jew unless his mother was Jewish, and the only reference there is to his early life is phrased as though both parents are Christian, but the mother married a Jewish blacksmith. However, that could be just awkward word order, and he was the son of the Fernan Rodrgiues Alardo, the Christian nobleman and a Mariana who was Jewish. (Mariana sounds more Christian than Jewish given the naming patterns of the time.) This genealogy could be fake, and Brampton may have been from an upper class Jewish family, probably wealthy merchants - this would fit what we know about him. My overall impression of Brampton is that whoever he was he was raised in a privileged environment, as he moves so comfortably in the highest circles, but he is a bit of a chameleon who can switch with ease with whoever or whichever community suited his own interests best, something has to be taken into consideration when assessing the reliability of his testimony about PW.

I think it is quite possible that both Tyrrell and Brampton were involved with moving and possibly guarding both boys. I remember the the story about them leaving on a ship and drowning and it is true that every time a story is repeating it can change and eventually morph into something else. As you say, if the left the Tower by ship, and were not seen again, then some people could have assumed that they drowned on the ship. Brampton could have removed them, then sailed to another part of England - around Gipping perhaps, then taken one or both of them overseas. I certainly don't rule out the Gipping story - family legends often have a ring of truth about them. The boys could have been there with their mother for a while, then moved on, possible overseas. Calais or Flanders were options for a mercantile career, and perhaps all that moving around markets and apprenticeships that were described in the confession had something to do with that - just in a different context. I find the idea that PW just rocked up at Brampton's house in Middleburgh randomly and then went off to Portugal with his family very unconvincing. There may be an element of truth if Brampton took him to Flanders, and left him in the care of the Werbeques. In the French version of the confession, PW says he went to a Church school with a some sort of musical leaning, and named some of his teachers. Actually, the safest environment for the boys would have been a cloistered Church environment in the hope they would become priests or monks. Perhaps Brampton left them in different schools, Edward went along with the plan and we never heard from him a again, but Richard couldn't settle anywhere and ended up the restless soul we know as PW.

Nico



On Thursday, 19 July 2018, 19:34:16 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I recently ordered two old articles from the Ricardian by Barrie Williams, one about Brampton and one about the Princes. He says that Rui de Sousa, a former Portuguese ambassador in Edward IV's time claimed that he had seen Warbeck when he arrived in Lisbon with Lady Brampton in 1487, and he was not the same person as Richard of Shrewsbury who he had seen only two years before. If de Sousa is telling the truth, then he last saw RoS in 1485. If so the question is where? If he was not at the Court with Richard III, the it would most likely have been with Brampton, probably in London, where Brampton owned a house or perhaps in Flanders where Brampton was involved with the wool trade. Whether his assertion that RoS and PW were not the same person needs to be viewed with caution because de Sousa was working for Ferdinand and Isabella at the time. Doug here: de Sousa's account sounds very strange, to say the least! As you ask, just where did de Sousa see RoS in 1485? Do we know where de Sousa was in 1485? That might help, if only in narrowing down possible locations for RoS. Also, do we have a date for when de Sousa made this claim? Was it any time near the marriage negotiations between Spain and England over Arthur's marriage to Catherine of Aragon? The major problem I have with de Sousa's story is, of course, the date. The earliest we have for the boys' disappearance is just after the October Rebellion in 1483 and the latest would be around Easter of 1484, neither matching de Sousa's claim of 1485. Nor, FWIW, can I see Brampton, if it indeed RoS had been placed with him, telling all and sundry, even the Ambassador from Portugal, that RoS was in his care!
Nico continued: The article also made an interesting reference to a Portuguese history book that stated that Edward V died on May 23 1483, but RoS died violently. While that date is too early, it does resemble the de la Pole family tree that said that EV died on June 23 - still too early but both state the 23rd of the month and the Tower rescue attempt was July 23 and imply that the Princes died on different dates. If PW was RoS, he certainly died violently. Doug here: Do we have any knowledge of where that reference about 23 May, 1483 originated? Because the thought occurred to me that, if the original reference was in, say, Latin or French, and then translated into Portuguese, there might have occurred much the same as that which happened to the translation of Mancini's report, where occupation (or something just as neutral) became usurpation. Do we have a date, even an approximate one, for that date in the de la Pole family tree was placed there? It might make all the difference whether the date was written in after Bosworth or Stoke or even the November 1499 executions.
Nico continued: I am trying to dig up as much information about Brampton as I can. He's a fascinating and under researched character who admitted to having PW in his custody i n the late 1480s, and the trouble with dismissing PW as an impostor is that there isn't any solid evidence to disprove his claim. If Richard thought at least one of the Princes was safest abroad, then Brampton may have been a good choice as he appears to have been a loyal servant of Edward and Richard since the 1470s. There is a listing of his achievements pre-Bosworth on girders.net. After Bosworth, he lived in Flanders for a few years, but eventually returned to Portugal, where he remained until his death in 1508. 1489, he received a general pardon from Henry VII, although his estates in Northamptonshire that he inherited from his first wife were returned to the Tresham family (who she must have been connected to in some way, although I can't quite figure out how - maybe Hilary would know). Although his second wife was also English, (Margaret Beaumont, sister of the Bishop of Bath and Wells), I don't think he returned to England much if at all, and his children all married into Portuguese noble families. Doug here: Sounds to me as if Richard, the king, had plans for his illegitimate nephew that would have been appropriate for an illegitimate son of a king. He was to be raised in an upper-middle class family by a loyal supporter while also, with luck, learning the ins and outs of the most important economic sector of the country  the wool trade. I don't see that as disparaging, but I don't know what EW might have thought of it. Nico concluded:/ div> Brampton's life is difficult to pin down, especially the early part and there seems to be quite a lot of myth surrounding him. I had a look at the records of the Domus Convesorum and while there is a record of a 'Edward Brandon,' living there between 1468 and 1472, the only record of EIV being a godfather to a converted Jew was for a different man recorded as 'Edward of Westminster' who lived at the Domus for many years. 'Edward Brampton' is also listed as being there in 1488. It is generally assumed that the relationship between Edward and Brampton began due to the godfather relationship, but if it wasn't that, how did he come to EIV's attention and begin his illustrious career? Alcock and Morton served as Master of the Rolls (Wardens of the Domus) in 1471 and 1472, so perhaps he was introduced through them, and his association with Edward seems to have begun around this time. I am particularly curious about possible links with Morton. His pardon of 1489 refers him as a 'g odson of EIV' and a Knight, but I can't find any reco rd of him being knighted by EIV or Richard. The college of Arms does have a reference to Richard knighting many Northern men who aren't named individually, but Brampton didn't have any connections to the North. Perhaps he was a Portuguese hidalgo, and was generally referred to as a knight for this reason, and the godson rumour came from confusion with the the other Edward at the Domus. Brampton seems to have been an accomplished soldier and if he was a converted Jew, then it is more likely that he converted years before, probably as a child, as becoming a soldier or a knight was more or less impossible for Jews due to the Christian nature of military service in the middle ages, especially the oaths of fealty to knights. One Portuguese history says that he was the illegitimate son of a Portuguese nobleman, Fernan Rodrigues Alardo and a woman named Mariana who married a Jewish blacksmith. While not contemporary, it does seem to fit, as Brampton seems too comfortable with royalty and well connected to have come from humble origins, but seems to have some link to the Jewish community. He certainly had some credibility in Portugal or he wouldn't have been used in diplomatic missions. Most of his achievements are in either in the Calendars of Patent or Fine rolls, and I would like to check the exact citations, but I can't find them online for 1471-1485. Does anyone know of any links? Doug here: My understanding is that the king stood godfather to all converted Jews, so the relationship likely began there. Perhaps there was some sort of ceremony and Brampton, in some way or another, came to Edward's attention during it? Another possibility is that, in some manner or another, Brampton assisted Edward during the Re-Adeption, officially converted after Edward returned to the throne, and was subsequently knighted for that service. Perhaps the service Brampton provided had something to do with raising money or men or transport while Edward was in Flanders? We also have to remember that merchants, especially those moving goods between countries via ships, needed military skills as much as they needed those skills more usually associated with business. As trading usually paid better, becoming a merchant moving goods from, say Flanders to the Iberian peninsula and back, would require both sets of skills, wouldn't it? And those trips could also make the merchant/soldier available for diplomatic missions. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-23 12:28:45
Nicholas Brown

Thanks for looking that up, Marie. I had wondered if there was more than one Brampton family, but while most references do involve Duarte Brando, the Pastons' guests are more likely to be someone else. I would be interested in what St. Aubin has to say about Barnet and Tewkesbury. He certainly had a distinguished career at sea, but land battles seem less clear.

I remember reference about money owed to Brampton from the record summary of the Domus, but I had wondered if it was for the actual pension or for some other service. I could imagine him as some sort of spy. However, if it was the pension, then he must have been there as a convert. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I was just trying to get a full picture of a fascinating, but rather nebulous character who has key role in the Princes mystery. What got me into having a look at the records was the idea of the Domus as a temporary hiding place for the Princes, especially after the Tower rescue attempt. I couldn't find anything as such, although the reference to an Edward and Richard Beauchamp who came and went during the 1480s caught my eye. Unfortunately, Edward Beauchamp was said to have arrived in 1482. If it had been a year later that would have been interesting.

Another thought was that they were moved there after the Tower rescue attempt, but Robert Morton, who was later dismissed for possible complicity in Buckingham's rebellion was still in charge, and they came to a bad end there by way of Buckingham, Stanley or Morton. Perhaps Edward died, but Richard survived and was taken to Flanders by Brampton. Lots of possibilities, but just a thought.
Wishing you a very enjoyable holiday,
Nico
On Sunday, 22 July 2018, 14:46:28 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,
This is just a brief response on the 1460s and early 1470s stuff, from what I've been able to get a look at.

1.Kendall is very vague about his source for the 1469 campaign but does let slip that the ref is merely to Brampton' with no first name. I think it comes from the Paston Letters, where Young JO lists the names of members of the King's party whom he entertained to dinner at his mum's house in Norwich. Thing is, there was an English family of Bramptons known to the Pastons (Johns at this period) so if an unrelated Brampton was meant JP would have needed to give his whole name. So I really don't think this is at all likely to be our Edward.

2. I suspect the idea he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury comes from his rewards ( property and denization) in Oct 1472, which mention his good service in various battles, though these are not named. He had been commissioned in summer 1472 to go to sea against rebels, so that probably resulted in at least one sea battle. I can verify whether this is the only source for battles of B & T when I get to look st St. Aubyn.

3. He cannot have gone to Portugal with Rivers in 1473, both because the CPR shows he was serving the king directly off the English coast and because Rivers never made it to Portugal - he was washed ashore in Brittsny and stayed there until he retirned to England in December.

4. Edward Brampton was definitely a converted Jew and lived st the Domus during the 1470s. I found I have photos which I took some yrs back of an exchequer file from 1475, and one of the items deals with Morton's takeover of the Domus and what moneys were owing on it's accounts. This lists three conversi dwelling there who were each owed one year's pension. They included Edward of Westminster and Edward Brampton - spelled like that.

Will look at the Beaumonts whenever I can.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-23 13:49:55
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nico,


I don't think the document I found by accident has been used before. Adler, who wrote the history of the Domus, seems to have relied wholly on the series of Exchequer accounts which deal specifically with the Domus - these appear to be the series that is now labelled E101. He didn't pick up any problems with payment during Edward IV's reign at all, for reasons which will be made below, but did reference problems during the Readeption and Richard's reign, for which he insinuated political motives, but based on my document I suspect these hiccups were just the result of a new Master of the Rolls struggling to get recognition of his dues from the Exchequer (which was always looking for excuses not to pay people). The document I found was amongst the royal warrants for issues (E404), which are the Exchequer equivalent of the C81s we were all discussing a week or two ago - i.e. these are royal warrants to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


So far as I can see from TNA catalogue, there is a gap in the records of the Domus for the years 1472 to 1475 inclusive, so the E404 document helps to plug that gap. On the front is an instruction from the King to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dated 21 April 1475 and containing:

a) a formal grant to Morton of the keeping of the Domus, with the accustomed wages and fees (this doesn't seem to have been specifically made when he was appointed Master of the Rolls in 1472); and

b) an instruction to the Chancellor, treasurer and barons of the Exchequer to settle with Morton for the moneys due to him, his clerk there, the Domus' two chaplains, and the three resident converts (who are named as Edward [surname presumably Westminster but the paper is damaged by damp and illegible at that point], Edward Brampton and John Seyt.


On the back is a brief calculation of the moneys owing:

20 marks to Morton himself

£4 to each of the chaplains

2 marks to the clerk

547 1/2 d to each of the three converts, for 1 year's subsistence.


The full document reference is TNA E 404/76/1, membrane 15.


So you see this document makes it absolutely clear that Brampton was a convert. Looking through Adler, it is clear that this is also true of the residents with posh surnames such as Beauchamp, Scales and Vaughan. What I am thinking is that, whilst some converts were personally sponsored at baptism by the King, others may have taken the King's name in order to gain his protection, or found sponsorship from another powerful individual and taken their surname. Given the problems that Jewish converts faced in Iberia - always under suspicion and fear of being charged with backsliding - this would have been an eminently sensible precaution.

Adler also assumes that the king rarely stood godfather because the records of such events are rare, but I think it is unwise to assume that all the clerks of the Masters of the Rolls would have thought to record such events.

I therefore think it likely that Edward Brampton, first known to us as Edward Brandon, may have been brought to the King's notice by William Brandon, but possibly fell out with him later and so changed his surname slightly. (Adler believes Edward and Richard Beauchamp are the same man, changing his name to fit political change, as Richard appears only during the reign of Richard III and Edward only during the reigns of Edward IV and Henry VII, but I didn't think you could go round changing your baptismal name.)


Brampton had apparently left the Domus by 1482, so is unlikely to have used it as a place to stash the Princes, particularly with Bishop Morton's nephew in charge of the place. Any involvement of Brampton in removing them from England would, I think, have been wholly the result of his access to ships, his foreign connections and his daring do, and it could have happened much later in the reign.


Re your last post to Doug, I would suggest that Mariana would actually have been a Miriam; if she was North African, she may even have been Mariam I think, but you would need to check that with someone who knows. As Adler notes, the individuals' original names are very inaccurately recorded in the Domus records because the clerks were unfamiliar with them.


Marie







Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-07-23 19:05:13
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote to Nico,

You wrote in the third paragraph of your reply to Marie (which I've left attached below) that The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true... My understanding that whether or not one was Jewish was decided via the person's mother, not their father. So it seems likely that if he was the illegitimate offspring of some nobleman, the woman was Jewish. I'm not certain how the general Portuguese attitude towards Jews was in the mid-15th century, but it also doesn't seem likely that a Catholic nobleman would allow his son, even an illegitimate one, to be raised as a Jew if both parents were Catholic. I don't know if it helps or not, but thought you might like to know.


Marie responds:-

Back home, with access to my files.

I agree with Doug on this one. This is a late story which was invented by Brampton's wealthy descendants simply in order to claim Christian - and indeed noble - ancestry. It is tortuous and improbable, and this is what Cecil Roth had to say about it in 1956:-

Our hero (I suppose we must call him that) was a native of Lisbon, where his mother, nicknamed it is said Muchara, lived in the Rua de Valverde, the wife of a Jewish blacksmith. Later on, so as to obscure the awkward fact of his Jewish birth, his descendants put about the story that she was herself not a Jewess, but an 'Old Christian', that his real father was her lover Ruy Barba, a scion of a well-known Portuguese noble house from Leiria (or some other member of that clan), and that he was brought up by them as a Christian. This story was clearly set into circulation in order to clear the family of the 'taint' of infidel blood. It is established conclusively by the English records that the future Governor of Guernsey was baptised only in manhood, and that previous to that he had lived as a Jew. In the circumstances of the time it is as certain as any statement of the sort can be that he was of full Jewish blood. (Sir Edward Brampton, alias Duarte Brandão: Governor of Guernsey, 1482-1485', Reports and Transactions of La Société Guernesiaise, vol 16, p. 160).

Incidentally, the same article tells us that Brampton is referred to as the King's godson in various official documents.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-24 12:34:11
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for looking all this up Marie. It looks like Brampton was a actual convert, and that is why he lived at the Domus. Your explanation for the residents with posh names makes sense too. I had considered that possibility of Mariana being Miriam, perhaps a convert herself, but I just saw your other post about Cecil Roth's interpretation. I have seen the reference to the Rua Valverde before and the suggestion that the family tree was faked to Christianize his ancestry. There are a lot of false genealogies around, and I know that obscuring Jewish ancestry was common in 16th Century Iberia, so that could be what happened here. I don't think that there is any reliable record of who Brampton's parents were, but my guess is that he was probably from a Jewish merchant family of some standing, which mirrors Brampton's own career. Mariana and the blacksmith may never have existed at all. He appears too well connected to have come from average origins and the there were some Jewish families in powerful positions in Portugal at the time.

I have been looking through Arthurson, and there was another, unrelated Brampton family from Albury in Hertfordshire. Thomas and John Brampton were associated with William Barley and Robert Clifford as supporters of Perkin. It is more likely that someone from this family accompanied Richard to Norfolk in 1469 and fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury, but has become confused with Edward Brampton/Duarte Brandao, whose career was as a merchant, ships captain and sometime financier. As Doug suggested, he may have raised the money for some of the battles that restored Edward to the throne. The other Bramptons were probably more personally involved with the House of York, especially any of them who may have served Cecily, whereas Edward Brampton was more useful and powerful in any venture involving ships and foreign connections.

The reason I thought of the Domus as a hiding place was that it was such an unlikely place to look. At the time of the Tower Rescue attempt, the Woodvilles seemed to be the main threat and Morton was still under the radar. Brampton had left years before, but seems to have maintained contacts with it as he returned in 1488. However, my feeling is now that Brampton would not have been brought in unless/until they were to be taken abroad. I can't see any evidence of his involvement between him, Buckingham and MB, and he seems to have been loyal to the House of York who rewarded him well. He doesn't really show much interest in England after Bosworth; whatever he did after that appears to be to please the King of Portugal. I don't mean to be too much of a conspiracy theorist, but the PW conspiracy was a murky business, and some the loyalties of some of its cast are not quite what they seem.
Nico

On Monday, 23 July 2018, 13:50:01 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,


I don't think the document I found by accident has been used before. Adler, who wrote the history of the Domus, seems to have relied wholly on the series of Exchequer accounts which deal specifically with the Domus - these appear to be the series that is now labelled E101. He didn't pick up any problems with payment during Edward IV's reign at all, for reasons which will be made below, but did reference problems during the Readeption and Richard's reign, for which he insinuated political motives, but based on my document I suspect these hiccups were just the result of a new Master of the Rolls struggling to get recognition of his dues from the Exchequer (which was always looking for excuses not to pay people). The document I found was amongst the royal warrants for issues (E404), which are the Exchequer equivalent of the C81s we were all discussing a week or two ago - i.e. these are royal warrants to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


So far as I can see from TNA catalogue, there is a gap in the records of the Domus for the years 1472 to 1475 inclusive, so the E404 document helps to plug that gap. On the front is an instruction from the King to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dated 21 April 1475 and containing:

a) a formal grant to Morton of the keeping of the Domus, with the accustomed wages and fees (this doesn't seem to have been specifically made when he was appointed Master of the Rolls in 1472); and

b) an instruction to the Chancellor, treasurer and barons of the Exchequer to settle with Morton for the moneys due to him, his clerk there, the Domus' two chaplains, and the three resident converts (who are named as Edward [surname presumably Westminster but the paper is damaged by damp and illegible at that point], Edward Brampton and John Seyt.


On the back is a brief calculation of the moneys owing:

20 marks to Morton himself

£4 to each of the chaplains

2 marks to the clerk

547 1/2 d to each of the three converts, for 1 year's subsistence.


The full document reference is TNA E 404/76/1, membrane 15.


So you see this document makes it absolutely clear that Brampton was a convert. Looking through Adler, it is clear that this is also true of the residents with posh surnames such as Beauchamp, Scales and Vaughan. What I am thinking is that, whilst some converts were personally sponsored at baptism by the King, others may have taken the King's name in order to gain his protection, or found sponsorship from another powerful individual and taken their surname. Given the problems that Jewish converts faced in Iberia - always under suspicion and fear of being charged with backsliding - this would have been an eminently sensible precaution.

Adler also assumes that the king rarely stood godfather because the records of such events are rare, but I think it is unwise to assume that all the clerks of the Masters of the Rolls would have thought to record such events.

I therefore think it likely that Edward Brampton, first known to us as Edward Brandon, may have been brought to the King's notice by William Brandon, but possibly fell out with him later and so changed his surname slightly. (Adler believes Edward and Richard Beauchamp are the same man, changing his name to fit political change, as Richard appears only during the reign of Richard III and Edward only during the reigns of Edward IV and Henry VII, but I didn't think you could go round changing your baptismal name.)


Brampton had apparently left the Domus by 1482, so is unlikely to have used it as a place to stash the Princes, particularly with Bishop Morton's nephew in charge of the place. Any involvement of Brampton in removing them from England would, I think, have been wholly the result of his access to ships, his foreign connections and his daring do, and it could have happened much later in the reign.


Re your last post to Doug, I would suggest that Mariana would actually have been a Miriam; if she was North African, she may even have been Mariam I think, but you would need to check that with someone who knows. As Adler notes, the individuals' original names are very inaccurately recorded in the Domus records because the clerks were unfamiliar with them.


Marie







Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-24 21:22:35
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

"The reason I thought of the Domus as a hiding place was that it was such an unlikely place to look. At the time of the Tower Rescue attempt, the Woodvilles seemed to be the main threat and Morton was still under the radar. Brampton had left years before, but seems to have maintained contacts with it as he returned in 1488"


Marie writes:

The Tower rescue attempt was late July. Bishop Morton had been arrested on 13 June and was still in custody at that time. He was not only the uncle, but also the patron, of his nephew Robert, the then Master of the Rolls (he had personally given the post to him) so, although there does not seem to have been any hard information against Robert Morton at that early date, he was not someone Richard would have trusted too far. The Domus was not only in Robert Morton's official keeping, it was right next door to the Chancery offices so not in any sense remote from his main professional activities.

I also think it would have been problematic, and rather obvious, to bring two random English children into the Domus. The residents of whom we have records fall into two distinct groups: staff and converts, and the latter were, almost by definition, foreigners.

So I do think you're right to switch your concentration to Brampton as potential ferryman. Actually, if I were you I'd just keep gathering information from primary sources without worrying to start with about how to interpret it or paying attention to published interpretations. As you get more data, the picture will hopefully start to form itself.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-25 14:26:07
Nicholas Brown

Hi Marie,
Silly me! I forgot that Morton was arrested on June 13. No, that wouldn't work if his nephew was running the domus, but it was a very interesting dig.

My feeling is that Brampton was the ferryman who took one or both boys to Flanders - perhaps putting them in separate Church schools - but wasn't intended to care for them personally beyond a keeping a general eye on their welfare. For some reason, Richard didn't settle, and he had to try a other alternatives like taking him to Portugal. Perkin does seem to be a restless and impulsive soul; maybe he did run away from school, but if so, I don't believe Brampton was the random encounter of his testimony and the confession. Rather, Richard sought him out and Brampton knew he had a duty of care to do something for him.

I will keep checking the primary sources. There may be a few Edward Bramptons, as the Norfolk family of the same name is quite large. I found the reference to Brampton's knighthood. According to The Knights of England, he was knighted by Henry VII at Winchester some time between Easter 1499 and September 29 1501. His pardon of 1489 refers to him already being a Knight, but there is no previous record of his knighthood, so this must be an error or HT wouldn't have needed to knight him again. I didn't think he did that much for HT, but his testimony about the Werbeques must have helped.
As matter of curiousity, are all knighthoods recorded? There was a reference to Richard knighting the Spanish Ambassador and his 'natural son Richard' (actually John, I assume) on September 8 1483 at York along with 'many other Northern Gentlemen.' Who would they have been and if their names weren't recorded, how did they prove they were knights?
Nico


On Tuesday, 24 July 2018, 21:22:40 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

"The reason I thought of the Domus as a hiding place was that it was such an unlikely place to look. At the time of the Tower Rescue attempt, the Woodvilles seemed to be the main threat and Morton was still under the radar. Brampton had left years before, but seems to have maintained contacts with it as he returned in 1488"


Marie writes:

The Tower rescue attempt was late July. Bishop Morton had been arrested on 13 June and was still in custody at that time. He was not only the uncle, but also the patron, of his nephew Robert, the then Master of the Rolls (he had personally given the post to him) so, although there does not seem to have been any hard information against Robert Morton at that early date, he was not someone Richard would have trusted too far. The Domus was not only in Robert Morton's official keeping, it was right next door to the Chancery offices so not in any sense remote from his main professional activities.

I also think it would have been problematic, and rather obvious, to bring two random English children into the Domus. The residents of whom we have records fall into two distinct groups: staff and converts, and the latter were, almost by definition, foreigners.

So I do think you're right to switch your concentration to Brampton as potential ferryman. Actually, if I were you I'd just keep gathering information from primary sources without worrying to start with about how to interpret it or paying attention to published interpretations. As you get more data, the picture will hopefully start to form itself.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-25 21:49:15
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

I found the reference to Brampton's knighthood. According to The Knights of England, he was knighted by Henry VII at Winchester some time between Easter 1499 and September 29 1501. His pardon of 1489 refers to him already being a Knight, but there is no previous record of his knighthood, so this must be an error or HT wouldn't have needed to knight him again. I didn't think he did that much for HT, but his testimony about the Werbeques must have helped.


Marie replies:

According to my notes it was his son who was knighted in 1500 (I have the location as Winchelsea). Edward Brampton the father was knighted by Richard III. My last reference to him as an esquire is in March 1484, and my first reference to him as a knight is 20 August that year. According to Joan Szechtman, posting on another history forum a few years back, the exact date of the knighthood was 11 August and it is in one of Roth's papers. He was actually a knight of the Body to Richard from August 1484. I'm sure you're right about Henry's reasons for restoring the family to favour.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-26 10:37:02
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Marie for clarifying that. The book that I was looking at only listed Brampton Kt, but no name, so I assumed it was Sir Edward. It never occurred to me that it was actually his son.

Nico
On Thursday, 26 July 2018, 04:12:31 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

I found the reference to Brampton's knighthood. According to The Knights of England, he was knighted by Henry VII at Winchester some time between Easter 1499 and September 29 1501. His pardon of 1489 refers to him already being a Knight, but there is no previous record of his knighthood, so this must be an error or HT wouldn't have needed to knight him again. I didn't think he did that much for HT, but his testimony about the Werbeques must have helped.


Marie replies:

According to my notes it was his son who was knighted in 1500 (I have the location as Winchelsea). Edward Brampton the father was knighted by Richard III. My last reference to him as an esquire is in March 1484, and my first reference to him as a knight is 20 August that year. According to Joan Szechtman, posting on another history forum a few years back, the exact date of the knighthood was 11 August and it is in one of Roth's papers. He was actually a knight of the Body to Richard from August 1484. I'm sure you're right about Henry's reasons for restoring the family to favour.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-27 11:49:16
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nico,


I promised I'd report on what sources Giles St. Aubyn gives for Brampton at Barnet and Tewkesbury once I got a chance. Disappointingly, he doesn't give any at all - seems to treat it as a given. So I still think this is an interpretation of the reference in 1473 to his help in many battles.


Something else in one of Roth's article I have dug into and wanted to pick up on as it seems to be a contributory factor to Roth's claim in the same article that Brampton gave 'a magniloquent account of his origin and his past' :-

". . . Mr. A. M. Hyamson . . . called my attention to an entry in the antiquated Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique by Louis Moreri (Paris, I759), which vaguely seemed to refer to the same person, but for some reason or the other (perhaps because it was so obviously fantastic) had failed to pass, as is normally the case, into the common store of subsequent biographical dictionaries, Relying on the MS. Memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra, it told of a certain English gentleman, named Edward Brandao or Brandon, of the family of the subsequent Dukes of Suffolk, who flourished in the reign of Edward III (!), became Governor of the Isle of Wight (!), and Knight of the Garter (!) and served with distinction in the foreign wars, first in the English and then in the Burgundian service. The incidental similarity between this story and the career of my hero of a quarter of a century before, Sir Edward Brampton, was sufficient for me to make an attempt to trace the Memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra, which Moreri quoted as his source." (Roth, 'Sir Edward Brampton, An Anglo-Jewish Adventurer during the Wars of the Roses', Trans. Jewish Hist. Soc, Vol. 16, 1952, p. 122)

Roth tells us that he completely failed to find these memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra.


Now, I've looked up Moreri's Grand Dictionnaire, and there are a few things of things to say. First, regarding the accuracy of Roth's summary:

1. Moreri (acute on the e, by the way) actually names his subject as "BRANDANO ou BRANDAM (Edouard)".

2. Although he is said to have lived in the reign of Edward III, Edward IV is clearly meant as the account refers to Brandano having sat at table with Edward III and Louis XI at Picquigny.

3. Moreri's account makes no mention of his having been a knight of the Garter, merely saying he had been a knight since the time of King Edward III [sic].

4. Moreri, to be pedantic, gives his source as "Mem. manuscr. de feu M. le comte d'Ericeyra. (MS mem. of the late count of Ericeyra).

Roth states in a footnote that he assumes the improbable claims in Moreri 'go back ultimately to Brampton's personal account'. In his 1956 paper, he relates that Brampton 'afterwards boasted' of his defeat of a German champion at the king's court - which is an incident from Moreri's account. Did Roth therefore assume the count on whose work Moreri based his biography to have been a contemporary of Brampton's?

Well, (albeit relying on Wikipedia) I've discovered that the title Conde de Ericeira did not exist before 1622, when it was created by King Philip II for Diogo de Menezes, so there is no way that these notes used by Moreri were at all contemporaneous with Brampton - manuscript memoranda, perhaps, rather than memoirs. The count who most probably wrote this lost MS is Luis de Menezes (1632-1690), the author of the Historia de Portugal Restaurado. I've checked this published work of Count Luis, and there's no mention of Brampton in it, but this is not surprising as it starts with the reign of Philip II. He does, however, seem the most likely author of the MS. So all this tells us, really, is what was being claimed about Brampton in Portugal in the mid 17th century.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-27 12:54:06
Nicholas Brown
Hi Marie,
Thanks again for checking all this. Brampton is certainly hard pin down, there seems to be a lot of myth surrounding him, even possible confusion with other people with similar names. Sometimes he comes across almost like a fictional character and some of the original sources are not always clear. I can't find find any evidence for his first wife and his son (by the second wife) would have still been a teenager when HT knighted him in 1500. But then, HT owed Sir Edward a huge debt of gratitude for hits part in helping to discredit PW. EB is a shadowy footnote in history, but he without him HT may not have had a throne at all. I'll keep looking at the primary sources, to try to streamline a more comprehensive history for him.
Nico

On Friday, 27 July 2018, 11:49:23 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,


I promised I'd report on what sources Giles St. Aubyn gives for Brampton at Barnet and Tewkesbury once I got a chance. Disappointingly, he doesn't give any at all - seems to treat it as a given. So I still think this is an interpretation of the reference in 1473 to his help in many battles.


Something else in one of Roth's article I have dug into and wanted to pick up on as it seems to be a contributory factor to Roth's claim in the same article that Brampton gave 'a magniloquent account of his origin and his past' :-

". . . Mr. A. M. Hyamson . . . called my attention to an entry in the antiquated Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique by Louis Moreri (Paris, I759), which vaguely seemed to refer to the same person, but for some reason or the other (perhaps because it was so obviously fantastic) had failed to pass, as is normally the case, into the common store of subsequent biographical dictionaries, Relying on the MS. Memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra, it told of a certain English gentleman, named Edward Brandao or Brandon, of the family of the subsequent Dukes of Suffolk, who flourished in the reign of Edward III (!), became Governor of the Isle of Wight (!), and Knight of the Garter (!) and served with distinction in the foreign wars, first in the English and then in the Burgundian service. The incidental similarity between this story and the career of my hero of a quarter of a century before, Sir Edward Brampton, was sufficient for me to make an attempt to trace the Memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra, which Moreri quoted as his source." (Roth, 'Sir Edward Brampton, An Anglo-Jewish Adventurer during the Wars of the Roses', Trans. Jewish Hist. Soc, Vol. 16, 1952, p. 122)

Roth tells us that he completely failed to find these memoirs of the Conde d'Ericeyra.


Now, I've looked up Moreri's Grand Dictionnaire, and there are a few things of things to say. First, regarding the accuracy of Roth's summary:

1. Moreri (acute on the e, by the way) actually names his subject as "BRANDANO ou BRANDAM (Edouard)".

2. Although he is said to have lived in the reign of Edward III, Edward IV is clearly meant as the account refers to Brandano having sat at table with Edward III and Louis XI at Picquigny.

3. Moreri's account makes no mention of his having been a knight of the Garter, merely saying he had been a knight since the time of King Edward III [sic].

4. Moreri, to be pedantic, gives his source as "Mem. manuscr. de feu M. le comte d'Ericeyra. (MS mem. of the late count of Ericeyra).

Roth states in a footnote that he assumes the improbable claims in Moreri 'go back ultimately to Brampton's personal account'. In his 1956 paper, he relates that Brampton 'afterwards boasted' of his defeat of a German champion at the king's court - which is an incident from Moreri's account. Did Roth therefore assume the count on whose work Moreri based his biography to have been a contemporary of Brampton's?

Well, (albeit relying on Wikipedia) I've discovered that the title Conde de Ericeira did not exist before 1622, when it was created by King Philip II for Diogo de Menezes, so there is no way that these notes used by Moreri were at all contemporaneous with Brampton - manuscript memoranda, perhaps, rather than memoirs. The count who most probably wrote this lost MS is Luis de Menezes (1632-1690), the author of the Historia de Portugal Restaurado. I've checked this published work of Count Luis, and there's no mention of Brampton in it, but this is not surprising as it starts with the reign of Philip II. He does, however, seem the most likely author of the MS. So all this tells us, really, is what was being claimed about Brampton in Portugal in the mid 17th century.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-27 17:13:39
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

Brampton is certainly hard pin down, there seems to be a lot of myth surrounding him, even possible confusion with other people with similar names. Sometimes he comes across almost like a fictional character and some of the original sources are not always clear. I can't find find any evidence for his first wife and his son (by the second wife) would have still been a teenager when HT knighted him in 1500. But then, HT owed Sir Edward a huge debt of gratitude for hits part in helping to discredit PW. EB is a shadowy footnote in history, but he without him HT may not have had a throne at all.


Marie replies:

!. There's a lot of myth surrounding him, I think, for two reasons: first that his origins were not what his descendants would have liked, and second that most of his career was spent abroad (from the Portuguese perspective). So the development of family myths - some of them eventually mutually incompatible - isn't that surprising. But there's no reason at all to suppose that it was Sir Edward himself who was responsible for these stories. I agree that original sources aren't always clear because most writers have simply relied on Roth, and he tends to be rather vague.


2. I have found some evidence for the first wife, though I've not got to the bottom of things. If we take these together:

11 March 1465 - Sir John Don and his wife, who had already been granted the forfeited lands of Sir Thomas Tresham (son of the late Sir William Tresham, were granted the reversion of those lands which Isabel, now the wife of Sir William Pecche, held in dower. This is clearly Isabel Vaux, Sir William Tresham's widow. (These lands would of course also be forfeit to the crown on her death.) (CPR, pp. 430-431)

1474 - According to Roth's source, Brampton had the advowson of one of Lady Isabel's churches.

1478 - The rental for the properties of the London Charterhouse includes a year's rent of 13sd 4d paid by Edward Brampton and Lady Peche for a tenement 'formerly called le cage, late in the tenure of Sir Thomas Tresham' .

19 November 1479  Writ of diem clausit extremum for Isabel late the wife of William Pecchy knight: Northampton (CFR, No. 515, p. 175).

2 May 1480 - Brampton was granted some properties "late of Isabel Pecche, his late wife, and in the king's hands by the forfeiture of Thomas Tresham, knight" (CPR, p. 221)

So it's clear that his first wife was Isabel Vaux, widow of Sir William Tresham (the Speaker who was murdered in 1450) and then the wife of Sir William Pecche. If she was the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham, then he seems to have been her only child because Sir William Pecche's son and heir, John, was not born until about 1473 and his daughter Elizabeth was still unmarried at his death in 1488. Their mother appears to have been Joan, not Isabel.

So this takes us a bit further than Roth, but not all the way. The million dollar question is how did Lady Pecche become free to remarry during Sir William Pecche's lifetime. There are two possibilities that occur to me. First, the one suggested by Roth, is that the couple's marriage was annulled. The other is that there were two consecutive Sir William Pecche's, the one married to Isabel dying in the early 1470s and being replaced by a son of the same name. The latter seems more likely but what I've found so far doesn't exactly support it. It is possible that Sir William Pecche decided to try to divorce Isabel when she passed childbearing age and without having given him any offspring. I'll have to see if I can find any evidence for that - none so far - or any impediments of relationship they could have used.

Anyway, I'm not particularly surprised, given her circumstances, that Isabel chose to remarry a man who was in the King's favour - look at the trouble Rivers was giving Lady Ros in his haste to get hold of her dower. Yes, she would have been considerably older than Brampton, but probably not as much as has been claimed, and the marriage would have given him some property and respectability, at least for the term of Isabel's life. It is rather unfair of Roth to describe Brampton disapprovingly as 'treating the estate as his own' since he was Isabel's husband and that was the deal in those days. He was, in a practical sense, her protector, someone who could ward off any attempts to confiscate her dower lands during her lifetime.

In the end, the Tresham dower lands were all regranted to Brampton - some by Edward IV and some by Richard III. Roth missed the fact of the forfeiture and so thought Brampton must have sort of stolen them, but really he had a better moral claim to them than the Donnes.

So this also explains why Brampton's son was so young at his death. Isabel was not able to give him any children and so that had to wait for his second marriage.


I'm sure Brampton was no saint - people who get on that successfully almost never are - but most of the criticisms of his character that have been made are unfounded and really the result of Roth's difficulty in interpreting his sources. I feel a bit mean saying that, in a way, as he did such a remarkable job linking the Edward Brandon of the Domus with Duarte Brandao the Portuguese gentleman in the teeth of a lot of academic opposition.







Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-28 22:26:55
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:

19 November 1479  Writ of diem clausit extremum for Isabel late the wife of William Pecchy knight: Northampton (CFR, No. 515, p. 175).

2 May 1480 - Brampton was granted some properties "late of Isabel Pecche, his late wife, and in the king's hands by the forfeiture of Thomas Tresham, knight" (CPR, p. 221)

So it's clear that his first wife was Isabel Vaux, widow of Sir William Tresham (the Speaker who was murdered in 1450) and then the wife of Sir William Pecche. If she was the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham, then he seems to have been her only child because Sir William Pecche's son and heir, John, was not born until about 1473 and his daughter Elizabeth was still unmarried at his death in 1488. Their mother appears to have been Joan, not Isabel.

So this takes us a bit further than Roth, but not all the way. The million dollar question is how did Lady Pecche become free to remarry during Sir William Pecche's lifetime. There are two possibilities that occur to me. First, the one suggested by Roth, is that the couple's marriage was annulled. The other is that there were two consecutive Sir William Pecche's, the one married to Isabel dying in the early 1470s and being replaced by a son of the same name. The latter seems more likely but what I've found so far doesn't exactly support it. It is possible that Sir William Pecche decided to try to divorce Isabel when she passed childbearing age and without having given him any offspring. I'll have to see if I can find any evidence for that - none so far - or any impediments of relationship they could have used.


The Tresham-Brampton-Peche triangle is hard to fathom. I can't find any other Sir William Pecche other than the one you mention either. His father was John Pecche, and William was born in 1425, so he was considerably younger than her - a similar age to her son Sir Thomas Tresham. If did marry Isabel Vaux, then I would think Roth must be correct that it was annulled, then she married Brampton who was probably even younger. Most histories about Pecche mention two wives, Jane/Joan Clifford and Anne Proffet, but no Isabel.
The other possibility that I thought of was that Isabel Vaux married a Sir William Pecche from a completely different family. There were quite a few London merchants named Pecche, so could it have been possible that she married a merchant named William Pecche, then he died and then she married Brampton? Alternatively, I considered thae possibility that Isabel was a younger relative of Isabel Vaux and the property was given to her (although I don't think this would have been allowed), but I can't find who it would have been. According to the Visitations of Northamptonshire, Isabel and Sir William Tresham had 3 children - Sir Thomas, Henry and a daughter, Alice Merton. Sir Thomas had a daughter Isabel, but she married into the de Vere family and was alive long past 1480. Henry had a number of sons, but no listed daughters, so I prefer the first option.
If that is the case, it makes more sense. Isabel married someone named Sir William Pecche, (probably a more age appropriate one) and after he died, she married Brampton. She died in 1479, Edward IV reclaimed the confiscated property, then granted it to Brampton. Would that be possible?
Nico



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-29 07:23:12
mariewalsh2003

Nicholas wrote:

The Tresham-Brampton-Peche triangle is hard to fathom. I can't find any other Sir William Pecche other than the one you mention either. His father was John Pecche, and William was born in 1425, so he was considerably younger than her - a similar age to her son Sir Thomas Tresham.


Marie replies:

1425 is the absolute latest year in which Sir William Pecche could have been born. It's the problem with sources again. The only evidence of age that we have is from an inquisition post mortem taken after the death of his great-aunt Katherine (whose heir he was) in May 1446, which stated that he was "twenty-one years of age and more". This has been taken literally as meaning he was 21, but all it really means is that he was definitely of full age. (If 21 and more" in IPMs meant aged 21, there would have been a strangely large number of heirs aged exactly 21 at the time of the IPMs in which they are mentioned). His father had died in 1439, and it is to be presumed that he had already had livery of Lullingstone. So we don't know when he was born, except that it was almost certainly before 1425. Since his father was born in 1389, William is more likely to have been born round about 1410-1415.

Similarly, we don't actually know Isabel's age. I believe the sources that have been used to produce this now set-in-stone estimate of 1404 are early 17th-century genealogies, which give almost certainly give no dates, and which, as I understand it currently, claim her as a daughter of Sir William Vaux of Harrowden but without specifying which one. I can't find any Vaux wills, which doesn't help, but 1404 seems to have been suggested in order to squeeze her in amongst the children of William Vaux (not a knight!) who died in 1405. I need to take a better look at this and report back later.


Nicholas write:

If did marry Isabel Vaux, then I would think Roth must be correct that it was annulled, then she married Brampton who was probably even younger. Most histories about Pecche mention two wives, Jane/Joan Clifford and Anne Proffet, but no Isabel.

The other possibility that I thought of was that Isabel Vaux married a Sir William Pecche from a completely different family. There were quite a few London merchants named Pecche, so could it have been possible that she married a merchant named William Pecche, then he died and then she married Brampton?


Marie replies:

I would go along with what you say other than for a couple of vital clues:-

1) The William Pecche to whom she was married at the time of the 1465 document was a knight - this is clearly stated; she is later referred to as Lady Pecche. Like you, I have found no evidence of the existence of any other Sir William Pecche at this period.

2) There is also the odd fact to be taken into account that Sir William Peche of Lullingstone's children were not born until the 1470s. John, the heir, was born in 1473 (we have this from his father's IPM), and the daughter, Elizabeth was probably slightly younger as she did not marry until about 1495. Now, there are a couple of considerations:

a) Any wife whom Sir William had married as a young man would have been too old to suddenly start giving him children in the 1470s, so either he had remained unmarried until late middle age or the mother of these children was at least wife number two. So one way or another I think we have to accept the existence of a wife who was not acknowledged in the later genealogies. The annulment of the marriage would certainly explain that.

b) John's birth comes about a year after Brampton appears to have married his Isabel, Lady Pecche. Ergo, Lady Isabel Vaux-Tresham appears to have come free from her marriage to her Sir William Pecche at about the same time that Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone started thinking about remarriage.


Nicholas wrote:

Alternatively, I considered thae possibility that Isabel was a younger relative of Isabel Vaux and the property was given to her (although I don't think this would have been allowed), but I can't find who it would have been. According to the Visitations of Northamptonshire, Isabel and Sir William Tresham had 3 children - Sir Thomas, Henry and a daughter, Alice Merton. Sir Thomas had a daughter Isabel, but she married into the de Vere family and was alive long past 1480. Henry had a number of sons, but no listed daughters, so I prefer the first option.


Marie replies:

I'm afraid the details of the 1465 document rule this out as an option, even though Roth sort of suggested it. The Isabel, wife of Sir William Pecche, in question held a portion of the late Sir William Tresham lands *in dower* (this is specifically stated in the 1465 doc), and they were due to revert on her death. She can thus only be Sir William Tresham's widow - whose name, indeed, we know was Isabel.


Nico wrote:

If that is the case, it makes more sense. Isabel married someone named Sir William Pecche, (probably a more age appropriate one) and after he died, she married Brampton. She died in 1479, Edward IV reclaimed the confiscated property, then granted it to Brampton. Would that be possible?


Marie replies:

That was my first thought too. Since there is no sign of any other Sir William Pecche having existed, and since the Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who died in 1488 produced children suspiciously late in life if he was the same Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who was born before 1425, I did wonder to start with whether there may have been two of them in succession, the first dying c. 1471 leaving a son and heir of the same name. But no. Not only is there no sign of this in the records, but in 1484 Sir William obtained a certified copy of a grant of a life pension which had been made to him by Edward IV - as Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone - in 1461. So, reluctantly, I have come round to the idea that Roth's annulment theory was probably right.


Interesting that this theoretical annulment would have come at a very turbulent period in the family's fortunes. During the Readeption the Treshams and the Vauxs were back in favour, but Sir William Pecche was out in the cold. Then came Tewkesbury. Sir William Vaux (Isabel's nephew? or brother?) was killed, and her son/stepson Sir Thomas Tresham was captured and executed the day after as a second-time offender. So you can imagine relations between the staunchly Yorkist Sir William Pecche and his barren Lancastrian wife might not have been great at this period.


I'll report back on Isabel's age and parentage as soon as I have something solid to say.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-29 20:27:40
Nicholas Brown

I now think that the only explanation is that Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone was married to Isabel, but the marriage was annulled. Afterwards she married Brampton. However, are the any indications as to what the grounds for the annulment could have been? I would imagine it would be something like coercion or misrepresentation. As far as I can see, they were unrelated.

Marie wrote:

1425 is the absolute latest year in which Sir William Pecche could have been born. It's the problem with sources again. The only evidence of age that we have is from an inquisition post mortem taken after the death of his great-aunt Katherine (whose heir he was) in May 1446, which stated that he was "twenty-one years of age and more"... His father had died in 1439, and it is to be presumed that he had already had livery of Lullingstone. So we don't know when he was born, except that it was almost certainly before 1425. Since his father was born in 1389, William is more likely to have been born round about 1410-1415....Similarly, we don't actually know Isabel's age.

That's true, he could have been a bit older. The only indication for Isabel's date of birth is the approximate age of her children. Sir Thomas Tresham was her eldest son, and he must have been born by 1425 because he was a JP in 1446 and represented Buckinghamshire in Parliament in 1447. Therefore, Isabel could have been born around 1410 at the latest, so she could have been close in age to Sir William Pecche, and if they married in the early 1450s, having some children wouldn't have been out of the question.

Marie wrote:

That was my first thought too. Since there is no sign of any other Sir William Pecche having existed, and since the Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who died in 1488 produced children suspiciously late in life if he was the same Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who was born before 1425, I did wonder to start with whether there may have been two of them in succession, the first dying c. 1471 leaving a son and heir of the same name. But no. Not only is there no sign of this in the records, but in 1484 Sir William obtained a certified copy of a grant of a life pension which had been made to him by Edward IV - as Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone - in 1461. So, reluctantly, I have come round to the idea that Roth's annulment theory was probably right.

Interesting that this theoretical annulment would have come at a very turbulent period in the family's fortunes. During the Readeption the Treshams and the Vauxs were back in favour, but Sir William Pecche was out in the cold. Then came Tewkesbury. Sir William Vaux (Isabel's nephew? or brother?) was killed, and her son/stepson Sir Thomas Tresham was captured and executed the day after as a second-time offender. So you can imagine relations between the staunchly Yorkist Sir William Pecche and his barren Lancastrian wife might not have been, great at this period.

If the annulment occurred in the early 1470s, the readeption and the subsequent turmoil after Tewkesbury may have been the cause along with Pecche's frustration at not having any children. I can only find one Sir William Pecche for the relevant time, but what is the best way of checking for knights? He isn't listed in the Knights of England directory and neither is Brampton, although the records state that they were knights. It is supposed to be a complete record of the College of Arms, but they seem to have a few Knights out.

Brampton must have married Isabel in early 1470s, but he can't have been interested in having any children with her. We don't know how old he was, but since he appears to be in his prime in the 1470s/80s, I would guess is of similar age to Edward IV, born around 1440. Perhaps that is where Arthurson and Rosemary Horrox got a negative impression of his intentions. Nevertheless, as I think you mentioned before, she may have welcomed marrying someone in favour with the King for protection while he benefited from her wealth and status. As long as there was no coercion or deception, then I can't a reason to assume dishonourable intentions or abuse on his part.

The questionable circumstances of the marriage and some of the aspersions of some writers about his character made me question whether Richard would entrust his nephew/s to Brampton for safekeeping abroad. If he would not some of my impressions on the Perkin Warbeck business would have to change, but if what we have worked out is correct, I can't see a problem with him, and he never demonstrated disloyalty or bad character in any other sphere.

Nico







On Sunday, 29 July 2018, 07:38:45 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

The Tresham-Brampton-Peche triangle is hard to fathom. I can't find any other Sir William Pecche other than the one you mention either. His father was John Pecche, and William was born in 1425, so he was considerably younger than her - a similar age to her son Sir Thomas Tresham.


Marie replies:

1425 is the absolute latest year in which Sir William Pecche could have been born. It's the problem with sources again. The only evidence of age that we have is from an inquisition post mortem taken after the death of his great-aunt Katherine (whose heir he was) in May 1446, which stated that he was "twenty-one years of age and more". This has been taken literally as meaning he was 21, but all it really means is that he was definitely of full age. (If 21 and more" in IPMs meant aged 21, there would have been a strangely large number of heirs aged exactly 21 at the time of the IPMs in which they are mentioned). His father had died in 1439, and it is to be presumed that he had already had livery of Lullingstone. So we don't know when he was born, except that it was almost certainly before 1425. Since his father was born in 1389, William is more likely to have been born round about 1410-1415.

Similarly, we don't actually know Isabel's age. I believe the sources that have been used to produce this now set-in-stone estimate of 1404 are early 17th-century genealogies, which give almost certainly give no dates, and which, as I understand it currently, claim her as a daughter of Sir William Vaux of Harrowden but without specifying which one. I can't find any Vaux wills, which doesn't help, but 1404 seems to have been suggested in order to squeeze her in amongst the children of William Vaux (not a knight!) who died in 1405. I need to take a better look at this and report back later.


Nicholas write:

If did marry Isabel Vaux, then I would think Roth must be correct that it was annulled, then she married Brampton who was probably even younger. Most histories about Pecche mention two wives, Jane/Joan Clifford and Anne Proffet, but no Isabel.

The other possibility that I thought of was that Isabel Vaux married a Sir William Pecche from a completely different family. There were quite a few London merchants named Pecche, so could it have been possible that she married a merchant named William Pecche, then he died and then she married Brampton?


Marie replies:

I would go along with what you say other than for a couple of vital clues:-

1) The William Pecche to whom she was married at the time of the 1465 document was a knight - this is clearly stated; she is later referred to as Lady Pecche. Like you, I have found no evidence of the existence of any other Sir William Pecche at this period.

2) There is also the odd fact to be taken into account that Sir William Peche of Lullingstone's children were not born until the 1470s. John, the heir, was born in 1473 (we have this from his father's IPM), and the daughter, Elizabeth was probably slightly younger as she did not marry until about 1495. Now, there are a couple of considerations:

a) Any wife whom Sir William had married as a young man would have been too old to suddenly start giving him children in the 1470s, so either he had remained unmarried until late middle age or the mother of these children was at least wife number two. So one way or another I think we have to accept the existence of a wife who was not acknowledged in the later genealogies. The annulment of the marriage would certainly explain that.

b) John's birth comes about a year after Brampton appears to have married his Isabel, Lady Pecche. Ergo, Lady Isabel Vaux-Tresham appears to have come free from her marriage to her Sir William Pecche at about the same time that Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone started thinking about remarriage.


Nicholas wrote:

Alternatively, I considered thae possibility that Isabel was a younger relative of Isabel Vaux and the property was given to her (although I don't think this would have been allowed), but I can't find who it would have been. According to the Visitations of Northamptonshire, Isabel and Sir William Tresham had 3 children - Sir Thomas, Henry and a daughter, Alice Merton. Sir Thomas had a daughter Isabel, but she married into the de Vere family and was alive long past 1480. Henry had a number of sons, but no listed daughters, so I prefer the first option.


Marie replies:

I'm afraid the details of the 1465 document rule this out as an option, even though Roth sort of suggested it. The Isabel, wife of Sir William Pecche, in question held a portion of the late Sir William Tresham lands *in dower* (this is specifically stated in the 1465 doc), and they were due to revert on her death. She can thus only be Sir William Tresham's widow - whose name, indeed, we know was Isabel.


Nico wrote:

If that is the case, it makes more sense. Isabel married someone named Sir William Pecche, (probably a more age appropriate one) and after he died, she married Brampton. She died in 1479, Edward IV reclaimed the confiscated property, then granted it to Brampton. Would that be possible?


Marie replies:

That was my first thought too. Since there is no sign of any other Sir William Pecche having existed, and since the Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who died in 1488 produced children suspiciously late in life if he was the same Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone who was born before 1425, I did wonder to start with whether there may have been two of them in succession, the first dying c. 1471 leaving a son and heir of the same name. But no. Not only is there no sign of this in the records, but in 1484 Sir William obtained a certified copy of a grant of a life pension which had been made to him by Edward IV - as Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone - in 1461. So, reluctantly, I have come round to the idea that Roth's annulment theory was probably right.


Interesting that this theoretical annulment would have come at a very turbulent period in the family's fortunes. During the Readeption the Treshams and the Vauxs were back in favour, but Sir William Pecche was out in the cold. Then came Tewkesbury. Sir William Vaux (Isabel's nephew? or brother?) was killed, and her son/stepson Sir Thomas Tresham was captured and executed the day after as a second-time offender. So you can imagine relations between the staunchly Yorkist Sir William Pecche and his barren Lancastrian wife might not have been great at this period.


I'll report back on Isabel's age and parentage as soon as I have something solid to say.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-30 16:13:10
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,

It's all I can think of too, but I'd be happier if we had direct evidence that Isabel's Pecche husband was Sir William of Lullingstone. Fortunately I've just found it. In 1459 there was a deed settling Stepney on Sir William Pecche and his wife Isabel, and it involved William Vaux. Now this definitely is Sir William of Lullingstone because the Stepney property was one of those he inherited from his great-aunt Katherine in 1446.
I'd ideally like evidence of when they married, whether Isabel was Willism's First or second wife (given that he was aged 21 or more in 1446 and Isabel's first husband didn't die until late 1450).

Ideally also I'd like to find an annulment, of course, but that's a very long shot. Only a minority survive and none of them are published.

Incidentally, I ve discovered the source of the claim that Sir Edward was a KG - according to an early modern source it was in his tomb inscription, but the tomb no longer exists. So that too would - if even genuine - have been the claim of his son, or possibly even grandson. I'm very disinclined to believe Sir Edward claimed it himself as it would have been very hard to pull off. Garter knights were very proud of their rank and went around wearing their fancy garters. Also they had to dress up in the full regalia every St George's day. The King of Portugal got a garter himself so people at the Portuguese court would have understood how it worked. Just not a feasible pretence for oneself, but possible to get away with claiming of a forebear. Incidentally, the Brandons don't seem to have been the only Portuguese family to have made this claim about an ancestor from the WotR - I got asked about another one very recently.

Will post again on Brampton's arms.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-07-30 19:22:33
Nicholas Brown
Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.

Nico

On Monday, 30 July 2018, 16:13:24 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,

It's all I can think of too, but I'd be happier if we had direct evidence that Isabel's Pecche husband was Sir William of Lullingstone. Fortunately I've just found it. In 1459 there was a deed settling Stepney on Sir William Pecche and his wife Isabel, and it involved William Vaux. Now this definitely is Sir William of Lullingstone because the Stepney property was one of those he inherited from his great-aunt Katherine in 1446.
I'd ideally like evidence of when they married, whether Isabel was Willism's First or second wife (given that he was aged 21 or more in 1446 and Isabel's first husband didn't die until late 1450).

Ideally also I'd like to find an annulment, of course, but that's a very long shot. Only a minority survive and none of them are published.

Incidentally, I ve discovered the source of the claim that Sir Edward was a KG - according to an early modern source it was in his tomb inscription, but the tomb no longer exists. So that too would - if even genuine - have been the claim of his son, or possibly even grandson. I'm very disinclined to believe Sir Edward claimed it himself as it would have been very hard to pull off. Garter knights were very proud of their rank and went around wearing their fancy garters. Also they had to dress up in the full regalia every St George's day. The King of Portugal got a garter himself so people at the Portuguese court would have understood how it worked. Just not a feasible pretence for oneself, but possible to get away with claiming of a forebear. Incidentally, the Brandons don't seem to have been the only Portuguese family to have made this claim about an ancestor from the WotR - I got asked about another one very recently.

Will post again on Brampton's arms.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-01 12:53:22
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.


Marie replies:

Thanks, Nico. One thing at a time, though; there's a lot to sort out here. One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently. It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates (this apparent lack of family feeling is remarked on by Malcolm Mercer in his book The Medieval Gentry).

So the first thing I would like to do - because it is much more likely to bear fruit - is to find evidence of the identity of Sir William Tresham's wife at around the time of Sir Thomas' birth, and/or evidence of the marriage contract between Sir William T. and Isabel Vaux.


There could be all sorts of reasons for an annulment. Force is highly unlikely to have been claimed successfully after such a long marriage. Consanguinity isn't necessarily obvious until you do the calculations because you get so many lines involved. Then, with the marriage of a widow you will have the possibility of an equally nebulous relationship of affinity (and if William Pecche was also a widower in the early 1450s you have even more likelihood). Perhaps there was a relationship, and a dispensation was obtained, but they then managed to find a flaw in the dispensation - apparently that is how Anne of York got out of her marriage to the Duke of Exeter. Perhaps the couple had had - or claimed to have had - an affair with each other during Isabel's marriage to Sir William Tresham; that would have barred them from subsequent marriage. Perhaps one of them had been clandestinely married to a third party . . . .


I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I also think now that the date of 11 August which Joan Szechtman once gave me for his knighthood may have been based on a misreading of a section in one of Roth's papers where he refers first to the knighthood and then to a grant dated 11 August (and the irony is that the grant wasn't even made on 11 August - Roth was looking at the date of the item above in the CPR). I think it's very likely, though, that Brampton took part in the naval campaign against the Scots in the summer of 1484 and that was what he was knighted for. He was knighted some time between 6 March and 20 August 1484, at any rate.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-01 15:39:58
Hilary Jones
Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it
Incidentally one of them married a Gigges. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, 12:49 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.


Marie replies:

Thanks, Nico. One thing at a time, though; there's a lot to sort out here. One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently. It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates (this apparent lack of family feeling is remarked on by Malcolm Mercer in his book The Medieval Gentry).

So the first thing I would like to do - because it is much more likely to bear fruit - is to find evidence of the identity of Sir William Tresham's wife at around the time of Sir Thomas' birth, and/or evidence of the marriage contract between Sir William T. and Isabel Vaux.


There could be all sorts of reasons for an annulment. Force is highly unlikely to have been claimed successfully after such a long marriage. Consanguinity isn't necessarily obvious until you do the calculations because you get so many lines involved. Then, with the marriage of a widow you will have the possibility of an equally nebulous relationship of affinity (and if William Pecche was also a widower in the early 1450s you have even more likelihood). Perhaps there was a relationship, and a dispensation was obtained, but they then managed to find a flaw in the dispensation - apparently that is how Anne of York got out of her marriage to the Duke of Exeter. Perhaps the couple had had - or claimed to have had - an affair with each other during Isabel's marriage to Sir William Tresham; that would have barred them from subsequent marriage. Perhaps one of them had been clandestinely married to a third party . . . .


I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I also think now that the date of 11 August which Joan Szechtman once gave me for his knighthood may have been based on a misreading of a section in one of Roth's papers where he refers first to the knighthood and then to a grant dated 11 August (and the irony is that the grant wasn't even made on 11 August - Roth was looking at the date of the item above in the CPR). I think it's very likely, though, that Brampton took part in the naval campaign against the Scots in the summer of 1484 and that was what he was knighted for. He was knighted some time between 6 March and 20 August 1484, at any rate.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-01 22:24:49
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:
One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently....It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates

I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I had never considered that angle, but it would come together better if Isabel Vaux was actually Thomas Tresham's stepmother rather than his mother. I also agree that Pecche's unwillingness to encourage Edward to restore Tresham's estates could be better explained if he had no actual relationship, and therefore no real loyalty to the Tresham family per se. If Isabel had been Tresham's mother, he would probably have done something, if only to keep the peace at home. Also, I would have thought that a rich woman in her 70s marrying a young foreigner and associate of the King could have attracted the same sort of negativity, even ridicule, as the John Woodville and the Duchess of Norfolk marriage, perhaps even coming to the attention of one of the chroniclers. It is certainly interesting that the evidence for her being Tresham's mother isn't contemporary. In my experience (genealogy mostly), visitations are an extremely useful guideline, but there are a lot of errors. I have also noticed a lack of attention to female lines. Where there are two wives, it can be difficult to ascertain which child belongs to which mother, but I have noticed quite a few errors that could have been picked out by naming patterns, the ages of children or examining a coat of arms. Some you just can't tell, but some historians just take a guess and settle on one with no real evidence. Perhaps that happened here.
I had heard of Brampton's success at Picquiny. If I remember rightly, he lent King Alfonso money, and won his favour. Certainly by the mid 1470s, Brampton was in an excellent position and highly thought of in both England and Portugal. He had certainly come a long way from being a refugee at the Domus Conversorum.


Hilary wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it..Incidentally one of them married a Gigges.

I have also thought about why how Brandao became Brampton rather than the more obvious Brandon. There doesn't seem to be a definite answer. Some say it was to avoid confusion with the Brandon family of Suffolk, but the Brampton family of Norfolk was prominent too, and quite large, with several distinct branches. There was a village of Brampton near one of Isabel Vaux's manors in Northamptonshire, which may have been included in the estate, so perhaps named himself after that. In fact, I have considered whether some references to 'Edward Brampton' (with no other identifying information such as Portugal) actually refer to this Edward Brampton or an Edward who was a member of the Norfolk Brampton family. I think this was the case for the 1469 visit to Norfolk, but I'm not so sure about later events. Also, since there were so many Norfolk Bramptons, could some have had Lancastrian loyalties, and others Yorkist? According to Arthurson, there were two Bramptons with Sir Robert Clifford and William Barley at Perkin's court in Burgundy, but there were nothing to do with Sir Edward Brampton. They had last been living in Hertfordshire, and may have been servants of Cecily at Berkhampsted.
Nico






On Wednesday, 1 August 2018, 16:34:40 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it


Incidentally one of them married a Gigges. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, 12:49 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.


Marie replies:

Thanks, Nico. One thing at a time, though; there's a lot to sort out here. One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently. It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates (this apparent lack of family feeling is remarked on by Malcolm Mercer in his book The Medieval Gentry).

So the first thing I would like to do - because it is much more likely to bear fruit - is to find evidence of the identity of Sir William Tresham's wife at around the time of Sir Thomas' birth, and/or evidence of the marriage contract between Sir William T. and Isabel Vaux.


There could be all sorts of reasons for an annulment. Force is highly unlikely to have been claimed successfully after such a long marriage. Consanguinity isn't necessarily obvious until you do the calculations because you get so many lines involved. Then, with the marriage of a widow you will have the possibility of an equally nebulous relationship of affinity (and if William Pecche was also a widower in the early 1450s you have even more likelihood). Perhaps there was a relationship, and a dispensation was obtained, but they then managed to find a flaw in the dispensation - apparently that is how Anne of York got out of her marriage to the Duke of Exeter. Perhaps the couple had had - or claimed to have had - an affair with each other during Isabel's marriage to Sir William Tresham; that would have barred them from subsequent marriage. Perhaps one of them had been clandestinely married to a third party . . . .


I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I also think now that the date of 11 August which Joan Szechtman once gave me for his knighthood may have been based on a misreading of a section in one of Roth's papers where he refers first to the knighthood and then to a grant dated 11 August (and the irony is that the grant wasn't even made on 11 August - Roth was looking at the date of the item above in the CPR). I think it's very likely, though, that Brampton took part in the naval campaign against the Scots in the summer of 1484 and that was what he was knighted for. He was knighted some time between 6 March and 20 August 1484, at any rate.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483

2018-08-02 09:09:36
Hilary Jones
Sorry folks I've just found two weeks' worth of emails dumped in my spam. Good old Yahoo!
Re the name of the Forum, if you go to the Richard III Forum it will immediately take you to the defunct one of the Society. That's because over the years that will have had thousands of Google 'hits'. It takes a long time to build up hits unless you pay, and that's prohibitively expensive.
Facebook is a good mechanism for generating free hits if you place a link on it, as I'm sure is Neil's intention. I agree, I wouldn't use if for discussion, it's not the right tool. But you could use it to guide interested people to the current discussion. I have a business Facebook page which I use to display my work and promote offers. I direct its readers to my website for the serious stuff. It can reach hundreds of followers in five minutes - for nothing.
And Facebook is a way of connecting with the younger, interested element. We need successors!
Just my view. H
On Friday, 20 July 2018, 19:12:07 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I agree with that too. The Richard III Forum sounds good and I hope we can keep this forum as an archive with a link to the new forum. Facebook may be OK as an adjunct to promote the forum, but like the other regular posters I'm not a big user of it. As for the the RIII Society, I joined the forum before the Society having found it when I googled a question about the Earl of Warwick, Easy access through google may bring in more people than a listing in the Society's bulletin. Maybe google groups would give it an advantage.

Nico
On Friday, 20 July 2018, 17:57:31 GMT+1, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:




Alison wrote:

"The Richard III Forum sounds good. Perhaps we could run the two groups for a while and see if the new one automatically takes over from this one."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. I don't think we should close this one prematurely. We need it as a fallback in case the new one doesn't work out.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-08-02 09:18:20
Hilary Jones
Sorry catching up! I'm just dipping into the new JAH and one of his proposals is that Edward V died in July - probably from illness (which would fit in with his poor handwriting). He bases this on various masses etc which were held later. So we keep coming back to that Tower break-in. Was Edward killed and his body disposed of so that Richard had the dilemma of not being able to produce it?
Incidentally, I think it's probably JAH's best, because like this group, it raises quite a lot of contentious questions. So sad he didn't have the time to follow up on it. H
On Saturday, 21 July 2018, 17:30:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, You wrote in the third paragraph of your reply to Marie (which I've left attached below) that The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true... My understanding that whether or not one was Jewish was decided via the person's mother, not their father. So it seems likely that if he was the illegitimate offspring of some nobleman, the woman was Jewish. I'm not certain how the general Portuguese attitude towards Jews was in the mid-15th century, but it also doesn't seem likely that a Catholic nobleman would allow his son, even an illegitimate one, to be raised as a Jew if both parents were Catholic. I don't know if it helps or not, but thought you might like to know. FWIW, it's also crossed my mind that perhaps we've been dividing up who did what too finely. What do you think of the idea that both Brampton and Tyrrell were involved in moving the boys from the Tower? Tyrell mixes the boys in with the other pages-in-training and Brampton provides to transport, a vessel, to move them out of London? We keep hearing that at least one boy disappeared via a ship, and presumably died, but what if that's merely a garbled version of the boys being moved via ship and not being seen in the Tower again? I can easily imagine several possible conversations between people at the Tower on the subject of where the boys went. Something along the lines of Well, they were here on X, then that ship (really more likely a large boat) arrived and a bunch of people left. And then that evolves into the boys going onto a ship and that evolves, when there's no sign of them, into one or both drowning. Just a thought. Doug Nico's response to Marie follows: Marie wrote:
To my mind some of the negative spin on Brampton's career has been pretty low. There is, so far as I recall, no evidence at all, whatsoever, etc, that he mistreated his wives. All it is that no record has been found of the death of his first wife, so some smart alec historian insisted he must have dumped her, perhaps illegally as there is no record of a divorce either. Ridiculous apology for reasoning imho. We have no actual record of the death of so many first wives. The game is, discredit Brampton and you discredit his protege. It's a game. Much of what passes for history is. This is essentially why I'm trying to find out as much as I can about him. Some some historians including Arthurson and Wroe have made assumptions about him that reflect on his protege that may not be based on fact and create an unfair bias. It isn't just a question of character that could shed light on the story, but also who else Brampton's career and who else he was connected to. There is a listing at the Domus Conversorum for an 'Edward Brandon' who lived there from 1468-72, with a hiatus around 1470. That would roughly coincide with the readeption, when he probably came to EIV's attention. Some sources say that he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and that he accompanied Richard to Norfolk in 1469. 'Edward Brampton' is listed for 1488, probably a brief visit. My guess is that these two Edwards are the same person, but no other resident of the Domus ever enjoyed such a stratospheric and sudden rise to wealth and power, so I wonder what he had to offer and who promoted him. The Masters of the Rolls who ran the Domus at the time were Robert Kirkeham, William Morland, John Alcock and John Morton. If his elevation came from Morton's association, then by 1483, he may have had divided loyalties. The listing of names at the Domus in the late 1400s seems to be a combination of converts as well as people with names from the gentry/nobility such as Beauchamp, Vaughan and Scales. The former group stay for many years, whereas the latter come and go. They could be employees of the Master of the Rolls (officially that wasn't allowed, but by that time there weren't enough converts to fills the Domus.) Imho, Brampton could have been some kind of diplomat of spy providing some sort of service. If the King was automatically considered that godfather of all Jewish converts, then that could explain why he was called that, but Michael Adler who compiled that Domus records says that the personal involvement of the King or Queen was very rare, and Edward IV only personally sponsored 'Edward of Westminster' in 1461. I strongly doubt that Brampton was converted at the Domus. The formal military training that would enable him to command warships and fight at Barnet and Tewkesbury would have been off limits to him unless he had converted at an early age in Portugal, and he may not have been Jewish at all. The story that he was a nobleman's illegitimate son by a woman who married a Jewish blacksmith may be true, as it would have given him links to both the nobility and the Jewish community, both connections from which he benefited.. Whoever he was, he was too well connected to have come from humble origins as some sources suggest, and I can't imagine Richard using someone who wasn't respected in his own country to play a prominent role in his marriage negotiations. As for Brampton's wives, it isn't clear who the first one was, although she is usually referred to as Isabel Pecche, but that doesn't seem right. The manors in Northamptonshire that he was granted in 1480 were lands associated with Sir Thomas Tresham who was execuated and attainted in 1471. They were Tresham mother Isabel's (nee Vaux) dower properties. Some sources say that she was married to Sir William Pecche, a prominent Yorkist, but he was alive after 1480. If Brampton married that Isabel, who was the widow of a different William Pecche, then that would support Arthurson's view of him as a fortune hunter as she would have been in her 70s. Alternatively, the properties could have been given to one of Isabel's granddaughters or nieces on her marriage to Brampton. He probably derived the name from the village of Brampton which was next to the main manor of Great Houghton. His second wife was Margaret Beaumont whose identity has been ascertained from the will of her brother Thomas Beaumont, Archdeacon of Bath and Wells, who left a bequest to her, Brampton and their children in his will (1507). They appear to come from a cadet branch of the Beaumont family, (connections to Morton and MB perhaps?),but I can't find any evidence that she was an heiress worth taking advantage of and she seems to be the mother of his 6 children. If Brampton were of good character, then it is quite possible that Richard would have entrusted him with Richard of Shrewsbury and James Tyrrell with Edward V. He also had links to the Gipping area through the wool trade. Alternatively, if he was enmeshed with Morton is some way, could he have been the 'certain Lord' who rescued Richard while EV perished in the Tower rescue attempt?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-02 12:47:18
Hilary Jones
Nico I'll have a look Just found all this. Wondered why the forum had been so quiet in the last couple of weeks! H
On Thursday, 2 August 2018, 04:30:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote:
One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently....It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates

I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I had never considered that angle, but it would come together better if Isabel Vaux was actually Thomas Tresham's stepmother rather than his mother. I also agree that Pecche's unwillingness to encourage Edward to restore Tresham's estates could be better explained if he had no actual relationship, and therefore no real loyalty to the Tresham family per se. If Isabel had been Tresham's mother, he would probably have done something, if only to keep the peace at home. Also, I would have thought that a rich woman in her 70s marrying a young foreigner and associate of the King could have attracted the same sort of negativity, even ridicule, as the John Woodville and the Duchess of Norfolk marriage, perhaps even coming to the attention of one of the chroniclers. It is certainly interesting that the evidence for her being Tresham's mother isn't contemporary. In my experience (genealogy mostly), visitations are an extremely useful guideline, but there are a lot of errors. I have also noticed a lack of attention to female lines. Where there are two wives, it can be difficult to ascertain which child belongs to which mother, but I have noticed quite a few errors that could have been picked out by naming patterns, the ages of children or examining a coat of arms. Some you just can't tell, but some historians just take a guess and settle on one with no real evidence. Perhaps that happened here.
I had heard of Brampton's success at Picquiny. If I remember rightly, he lent King Alfonso money, and won his favour. Certainly by the mid 1470s, Brampton was in an excellent position and highly thought of in both England and Portugal. He had certainly come a long way from being a refugee at the Domus Conversorum.


Hilary wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it..Incidentally one of them married a Gigges.

I have also thought about why how Brandao became Brampton rather than the more obvious Brandon. There doesn't seem to be a definite answer. Some say it was to avoid confusion with the Brandon family of Suffolk, but the Brampton family of Norfolk was prominent too, and quite large, with several distinct branches. There was a village of Brampton near one of Isabel Vaux's manors in Northamptonshire, which may have been included in the estate, so perhaps named himself after that. In fact, I have considered whether some references to 'Edward Brampton' (with no other identifying information such as Portugal) actually refer to this Edward Brampton or an Edward who was a member of the Norfolk Brampton family. I think this was the case for the 1469 visit to Norfolk, but I'm not so sure about later events. Also, since there were so many Norfolk Bramptons, could some have had Lancastrian loyalties, and others Yorkist? According to Arthurson, there were two Bramptons with Sir Robert Clifford and William Barley at Perkin's court in Burgundy, but there were nothing to do with Sir Edward Brampton. They had last been living in Hertfordshire, and may have been servants of Cecily at Berkhampsted.
Nico






On Wednesday, 1 August 2018, 16:34:40 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it


Incidentally one of them married a Gigges. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, 12:49 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.


Marie replies:

Thanks, Nico. One thing at a time, though; there's a lot to sort out here. One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently. It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates (this apparent lack of family feeling is remarked on by Malcolm Mercer in his book The Medieval Gentry).

So the first thing I would like to do - because it is much more likely to bear fruit - is to find evidence of the identity of Sir William Tresham's wife at around the time of Sir Thomas' birth, and/or evidence of the marriage contract between Sir William T. and Isabel Vaux.


There could be all sorts of reasons for an annulment. Force is highly unlikely to have been claimed successfully after such a long marriage. Consanguinity isn't necessarily obvious until you do the calculations because you get so many lines involved. Then, with the marriage of a widow you will have the possibility of an equally nebulous relationship of affinity (and if William Pecche was also a widower in the early 1450s you have even more likelihood). Perhaps there was a relationship, and a dispensation was obtained, but they then managed to find a flaw in the dispensation - apparently that is how Anne of York got out of her marriage to the Duke of Exeter. Perhaps the couple had had - or claimed to have had - an affair with each other during Isabel's marriage to Sir William Tresham; that would have barred them from subsequent marriage. Perhaps one of them had been clandestinely married to a third party . . . .


I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I also think now that the date of 11 August which Joan Szechtman once gave me for his knighthood may have been based on a misreading of a section in one of Roth's papers where he refers first to the knighthood and then to a grant dated 11 August (and the irony is that the grant wasn't even made on 11 August - Roth was looking at the date of the item above in the CPR). I think it's very likely, though, that Brampton took part in the naval campaign against the Scots in the summer of 1484 and that was what he was knighted for. He was knighted some time between 6 March and 20 August 1484, at any rate.


Marie

Re: June 1483

2018-08-02 12:54:35
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol. Just found this. I agree of course about Facebook not being suitable for a serious discussion group.
I like your Richard the Third - it might get round the pesky google search engine! H
On Thursday, 19 July 2018, 17:25:00 BST, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary wrote :

"I love the idea of a Facebook page; it can reach so many. Again we'll need to be creative with the name."

Carol responds:

I can see a Facebook page as a way to alert people to the forum/discussion group, but certainly not as a substitute as it's impossible for an old fogey like me to follow the discussion (and, of course, the Society has its own very restricted Facebook page). I actually hate Facebook and avoid it as far as possible.

As for the name of the group, it has to have Richard III in it. Maybe we could do like Paul Murray Kendall and spell it out--"Richard the Third"--which might keep it from being "bumped back to the old group." (Hope I quoted that correctly as I've deleted that part of your post.)

By the way, I hope we find a forum that doesn't leave trails of old posts hanging on the new ones, if you know what I mean.

And, again, please don't make it an email only group.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-02 13:09:09
Hilary Jones
Nico can you help me on Isabel Vaux? I have an Isabel Vaux, mother of Thomas Tresham (wife of Sir William Tresham) - but she would have been born circa 1404 given that her two sons fought (and died) for Lancaster at Tewkesbury. Her father died in 1405 (have to check). I also have Sir William Peche of Lullingstone (1424-1488) with two wives, Jane Clifford and Anne Proffit. So Isabel would have been about 46 when her first husband died - bit old to marry Pecche ( I assume divorce was there) and then marry Brampton. I doubt she was a great heiress - her nephew Roland Vaux didn't die till 1480 and was succeeded by his son, the famous Nicholas.
I struggle similarly with Margaret Beaumont so any help would be welcomed. Only just started looking.
But deep in Lancaster ......... and a great toll at Tewkesury, bit like the Bramptons at Towton. H
On Thursday, 2 August 2018, 04:30:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote:
One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently....It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates

I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I had never considered that angle, but it would come together better if Isabel Vaux was actually Thomas Tresham's stepmother rather than his mother. I also agree that Pecche's unwillingness to encourage Edward to restore Tresham's estates could be better explained if he had no actual relationship, and therefore no real loyalty to the Tresham family per se. If Isabel had been Tresham's mother, he would probably have done something, if only to keep the peace at home. Also, I would have thought that a rich woman in her 70s marrying a young foreigner and associate of the King could have attracted the same sort of negativity, even ridicule, as the John Woodville and the Duchess of Norfolk marriage, perhaps even coming to the attention of one of the chroniclers. It is certainly interesting that the evidence for her being Tresham's mother isn't contemporary. In my experience (genealogy mostly), visitations are an extremely useful guideline, but there are a lot of errors. I have also noticed a lack of attention to female lines. Where there are two wives, it can be difficult to ascertain which child belongs to which mother, but I have noticed quite a few errors that could have been picked out by naming patterns, the ages of children or examining a coat of arms. Some you just can't tell, but some historians just take a guess and settle on one with no real evidence. Perhaps that happened here.
I had heard of Brampton's success at Picquiny. If I remember rightly, he lent King Alfonso money, and won his favour. Certainly by the mid 1470s, Brampton was in an excellent position and highly thought of in both England and Portugal. He had certainly come a long way from being a refugee at the Domus Conversorum.


Hilary wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it..Incidentally one of them married a Gigges.

I have also thought about why how Brandao became Brampton rather than the more obvious Brandon. There doesn't seem to be a definite answer. Some say it was to avoid confusion with the Brandon family of Suffolk, but the Brampton family of Norfolk was prominent too, and quite large, with several distinct branches. There was a village of Brampton near one of Isabel Vaux's manors in Northamptonshire, which may have been included in the estate, so perhaps named himself after that. In fact, I have considered whether some references to 'Edward Brampton' (with no other identifying information such as Portugal) actually refer to this Edward Brampton or an Edward who was a member of the Norfolk Brampton family. I think this was the case for the 1469 visit to Norfolk, but I'm not so sure about later events. Also, since there were so many Norfolk Bramptons, could some have had Lancastrian loyalties, and others Yorkist? According to Arthurson, there were two Bramptons with Sir Robert Clifford and William Barley at Perkin's court in Burgundy, but there were nothing to do with Sir Edward Brampton. They had last been living in Hertfordshire, and may have been servants of Cecily at Berkhampsted.
Nico






On Wednesday, 1 August 2018, 16:34:40 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry for being away too! Do we know why Brampton took that name? You see there is an established Brampton family in Norfolk. But they were Lancastrian. Thomas Brampton has been attainted after Towton and doesn't seem to have had his fortunes restored until after 1485 though I could have missed it


Incidentally one of them married a Gigges. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, 12:49 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Thanks again, Marie. It would be very interesting to know the dates and any reasons for an annulment. If you find anything, let me know. I wonder if the marriage to Isabel was helpful to his career ascent, despite her Lancastrian connections as both events appear to have taken place around the same time.


Marie replies:

Thanks, Nico. One thing at a time, though; there's a lot to sort out here. One thing that is niggling me is the question of Isabel's age. As you have rightly observed, you would think it would have been a barrier to her last two marriages. What we ought to bear in mind is that, whilst we have firm evidence that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, we only have the evidence of the 17th visitation for her having been Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, and it actually doesn't tell us which Sir William Vaux was her father. If Sir William had been widowed and Isabel had been a young second wife, it would make much more sense of what happened subsequently. It would explain the readiness of young, still childless men, to take her hand in marriage, and also the apparent lack of interest shown by Sir William Pecche, who was one of the king's carvers, in using his influence to aid Sir Thomas' restoration to his estates (this apparent lack of family feeling is remarked on by Malcolm Mercer in his book The Medieval Gentry).

So the first thing I would like to do - because it is much more likely to bear fruit - is to find evidence of the identity of Sir William Tresham's wife at around the time of Sir Thomas' birth, and/or evidence of the marriage contract between Sir William T. and Isabel Vaux.


There could be all sorts of reasons for an annulment. Force is highly unlikely to have been claimed successfully after such a long marriage. Consanguinity isn't necessarily obvious until you do the calculations because you get so many lines involved. Then, with the marriage of a widow you will have the possibility of an equally nebulous relationship of affinity (and if William Pecche was also a widower in the early 1450s you have even more likelihood). Perhaps there was a relationship, and a dispensation was obtained, but they then managed to find a flaw in the dispensation - apparently that is how Anne of York got out of her marriage to the Duke of Exeter. Perhaps the couple had had - or claimed to have had - an affair with each other during Isabel's marriage to Sir William Tresham; that would have barred them from subsequent marriage. Perhaps one of them had been clandestinely married to a third party . . . .


I've been taking a bit of a break from Isabel Vaux to do some more work on Brampton himself. Very interesting. It looks as though he may have been one of the soldiers in Edward's army who took up with the Burgundians after Picquigny, and initially got to know King Afonso of Portugal when he visited Duke Charles in 1476. He also fought in the 1481 naval campaign, and the Howard Household Accounts include the name of his ship, the number of men who were to sail in it, and the costs of their wages and subsistence.

I also think now that the date of 11 August which Joan Szechtman once gave me for his knighthood may have been based on a misreading of a section in one of Roth's papers where he refers first to the knighthood and then to a grant dated 11 August (and the irony is that the grant wasn't even made on 11 August - Roth was looking at the date of the item above in the CPR). I think it's very likely, though, that Brampton took part in the naval campaign against the Scots in the summer of 1484 and that was what he was knighted for. He was knighted some time between 6 March and 20 August 1484, at any rate.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-02 15:30:49
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,
As Nico indicated, there was a Brampton or Church Brampton amongst Isabel Vaux's Northamptonshire dower lands. Roth suggested EB probably changed his surname for that reason when he married Isabel, and I think he's probably right. That would mean we could date the marriage by the timing of the change of surname. The earliest ref I have to Edward as Brampton is 2nd half of 1472.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-03 03:06:44
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,
I know I'm not Nico but I can help you out with Isabel. and William Pecche's wives. The problem has been that everyone has relied on a 17th century visitation for the Tresham's, and a rather sparse 100 year old family study for the Peches.
Isabel's birth year is not recorded anywhere - it's the usual old website copycat issue. Nor does the visitation say which Sir William Vaux was her father, but the one usually attributed to her was not even a Sir.
So here we've been using original sources. What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children.
Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.

Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.

The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-03 12:34:33
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children. Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.
Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.
The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

William Tresham only started out with a small amount of land, but by the time he died he was a manor landowner in Northamptonshire; some lands he bought, but others he probably acquired through marriage. An examination of the lands he held at the time of his murder in 1450 may shed some light on his marital history. An interesting factor about Isabel was that while initially she vowed to bring anyone involved in the murder to justice, she didn't pursue any case against the only named suspect, Simon Norwich. This is something of a mystery, especially since she was socially superior and had no reason to fear him, but possibly the actions of a much younger wife whose inclination was to move on. https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2015/10/27
What information do you have on Margaret and Thomas Beaumont?
Nico
On Friday, 3 August 2018, 03:06:51 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I know I'm not Nico but I can help you out with Isabel. and William Pecche's wives. The problem has been that everyone has relied on a 17th century visitation for the Tresham's, and a rather sparse 100 year old family study for the Peches.
Isabel's birth year is not recorded anywhere - it's the usual old website copycat issue. Nor does the visitation say which Sir William Vaux was her father, but the one usually attributed to her was not even a Sir.
So here we've been using original sources. What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children.
Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.

Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.

The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-03 12:47:01
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie. At which point Isabel would have been circa 68, if she is 'my' Isabel Vaux? I can see why some might have though Brampton was a gold-digger if that was so. So he probably didn't know about the Bramptons in Norfolk? And more reason to believe he probably wasn't a bigamist by the 1480s.
Still searching for Margaret Beaumont. There are of course quite a few Beaumonts from all over the place. I only have one from Devon who married Sir John Chichester and was born in 1476. Was she a widow too, do you know? H
On Thursday, 2 August 2018, 17:36:56 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As Nico indicated, there was a Brampton or Church Brampton amongst Isabel Vaux's Northamptonshire dower lands. Roth suggested EB probably changed his surname for that reason when he married Isabel, and I think he's probably right. That would mean we could date the marriage by the timing of the change of surname. The earliest ref I have to Edward as Brampton is 2nd half of 1472.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-03 12:58:11
Hilary Jones
Sorry just found this! And no, I don't trust a thing. H
On Friday, 3 August 2018, 03:06:51 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I know I'm not Nico but I can help you out with Isabel. and William Pecche's wives. The problem has been that everyone has relied on a 17th century visitation for the Tresham's, and a rather sparse 100 year old family study for the Peches.
Isabel's birth year is not recorded anywhere - it's the usual old website copycat issue. Nor does the visitation say which Sir William Vaux was her father, but the one usually attributed to her was not even a Sir.
So here we've been using original sources. What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children.
Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.

Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.

The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-03 17:23:23
Nicholas Brown
Sorry Marie, I read the bit about Margaret Beaumont wrong. If you find anything on her, let me know. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the the lands mentioned in Thomas Tresham's attainder and see if there is any of telling how Sir William obtained them. Wishing everyone a good weekend.
Nico



On Friday, 3 August 2018, 16:02:28 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote:What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children. Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.
Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.
The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

William Tresham only started out with a small amount of land, but by the time he died he was a manor landowner in Northamptonshire; some lands he bought, but others he probably acquired through marriage. An examination of the lands he held at the time of his murder in 1450 may shed some light on his marital history. An interesting factor about Isabel was that while initially she vowed to bring anyone involved in the murder to justice, she didn't pursue any case against the only named suspect, Simon Norwich. This is something of a mystery, especially since she was socially superior and had no reason to fear him, but possibly the actions of a much younger wife whose inclination was to move on. https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2015/10/27
What information do you have on Margaret and Thomas Beaumont?
Nico
On Friday, 3 August 2018, 03:06:51 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I know I'm not Nico but I can help you out with Isabel. and William Pecche's wives. The problem has been that everyone has relied on a 17th century visitation for the Tresham's, and a rather sparse 100 year old family study for the Peches.
Isabel's birth year is not recorded anywhere - it's the usual old website copycat issue. Nor does the visitation say which Sir William Vaux was her father, but the one usually attributed to her was not even a Sir.
So here we've been using original sources. What we've not yet established is whether Isabel was actually Sir Thomas Tresham's mother, but she definitely was Sir William Tresham's widow. I've also found documentary proof that she then married Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone. The marriage was childless and ended about 1471 (no annulment yet found but this is unsurprising) and both parties remarried. The family name of Sir William's next- and presumably first true - wife, Joan, is actually not recorded and has been based on rather vague heraldic evidence. She was the mother of his children.
Isabel married Edward Brampton about the same time.

Nico can tell you all about Margaret Beaumont.

The moral of the story, as ever, is don't ever trust anything other than contemporary records.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-04 02:02:07
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nico and Hilary,


I'm afraid I'm going to have to set this all aside for a while as I have a large project to get back to. I've found no evidence of Isabel Vaux's age or when she married Sir William Tresham, but like you Nico I am getting the feeling she really wasn't his first wife - probably - because of these mysterious property acquisitions in Northants; Isabel was not an heiress and these were not Vaux properties anyway. Also, it seems WT may have come from Gloucestershire originally, so what made him move to Northamptonshire if it wasn't coming into some property there by marriage? I do hope you turn something up, but it seems very poorly documented, and it's not helped by the attainders, which rob us of all those nice family wills which respectable people were able to get registered and executed.


Also, if Isabel was the daughter of a Sir William Vaux, as the Visitation claims, then it puts her a generation further forward than most genealogies give. In this scenario, the William Vaux who married QM's lady-in-waiting Catherine Pennison in about 1456 would be her brother, so even if she was ten years old than him she would have been unlikely to have married Sir WT before the mid 1440s.


I wonder if Sir Thomas's mother was, albeit maybe an small heiress, from a very minor family which the family was not later interested in acknowledging? The Vaux's, on the other hand, did very well in the 1500s.


If you find out anything more, do please let us know.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-05 20:56:47
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


Your Isabel Vaux is the one married to:-

(1) Sir William Tresham

(2) Sir William Pecche,

(3) Edward Brampton,

but we think her more likely to have been a young second wife of Sir William and not Thomas' mother, particularly as her father is said to have been Sir William Vaux, not William Vaux Esquire. (Too many Williams,) If so, she may easily have been born as late as 1430, and her nabbing young, and as yet childless, second and third husbands would make total sense.


Edward Brampton was definitely not committing bigamy. Isabel, Lady Pecche, died about the beginning of November 1479 - we have a writ of diem clausit extremum - and the Tresham lands she had held in dower were then granted to her widower, Edward Brampton. There is no evidence of Margaret Beaumont as his wife as early as this.


Nico has a evidence of will from a Beaumont Archdeacon of Bath and Wells which mentions Margaret, Lady Brampton, as a close kinswoman, but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.



And, to Nico,


I understand a bit more about the fate of the Tresham lands now. I mentioned that Sir Thomas Tresham was attainted in 1461, and his lands afterwards granted to the Donnes, and then in 1465 - although he had now been pardoned - the reversion of Isabel's dower portion was also granted to the Donnes on her death.


What I now realise is that these grants were voided by the Act of Resumption of 1467, passed by the same parliament that granted Sir Thomas Tresham his lands back. But Thomas fought for Lancaster at Tewkesbury, was executed and then re-attainted in 1472. This meant that Isabel's dower properties would again revert to the crown on her death and the King could grant them to whoever he felt appropriate. So in 1480 he passed them - or some of them at any rate - to Isabel's widower, which seems fair enough. More Tresham lands were at around the same time granted to a William Sayer and his wife Margaret, who appears to have been a Tresham by birth; these properties were also granted to Brampton by Richard in 1484.

But then after Bosworth Henry VII passed another Act of Resumption from which Sir Edward, unsurprisingly, got no exemption (and which I imagine restored the Treshams though I haven't checked). So from now on Sir Edward had no property in England. This probably explains why he almost never came back to England after this, and why, when he did visit in 1488, he stayed at the Domus Conversorum.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-06 09:23:40
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie (and Nico) I've done a bit more now.
Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later)
The Houghtons seem to have come to him through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death. William had also a daughter Margaret who married William Harweden of Harrowden. She is mentioned as the daughter of William and Eleanor in the IPM of her mother in law Margery St John. Church Brampton belonged to the Latimers. So this would appear to be the right family (i.e. not the Vauxs of Cumberland). I suppose Isabel could have been the daughter of Sir William (died 1460) if you want to date her later. Thyrning was married to the sister of Sir Gerard Braybrooke, so that also fits with some documents.

You've probably seen this:

'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'

Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother. There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own. And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed. That's as far as I've got to date. H

On Sunday, 5 August 2018, 20:56:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Your Isabel Vaux is the one married to:-

(1) Sir William Tresham

(2) Sir William Pecche,

(3) Edward Brampton,

but we think her more likely to have been a young second wife of Sir William and not Thomas' mother, particularly as her father is said to have been Sir William Vaux, not William Vaux Esquire. (Too many Williams,) If so, she may easily have been born as late as 1430, and her nabbing young, and as yet childless, second and third husbands would make total sense.


Edward Brampton was definitely not committing bigamy. Isabel, Lady Pecche, died about the beginning of November 1479 - we have a writ of diem clausit extremum - and the Tresham lands she had held in dower were then granted to her widower, Edward Brampton. There is no evidence of Margaret Beaumont as his wife as early as this.


Nico has a evidence of will from a Beaumont Archdeacon of Bath and Wells which mentions Margaret, Lady Brampton, as a close kinswoman, but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.



And, to Nico,


I understand a bit more about the fate of the Tresham lands now. I mentioned that Sir Thomas Tresham was attainted in 1461, and his lands afterwards granted to the Donnes, and then in 1465 - although he had now been pardoned - the reversion of Isabel's dower portion was also granted to the Donnes on her death.


What I now realise is that these grants were voided by the Act of Resumption of 1467, passed by the same parliament that granted Sir Thomas Tresham his lands back. But Thomas fought for Lancaster at Tewkesbury, was executed and then re-attainted in 1472. This meant that Isabel's dower properties would again revert to the crown on her death and the King could grant them to whoever he felt appropriate. So in 1480 he passed them - or some of them at any rate - to Isabel's widower, which seems fair enough. More Tresham lands were at around the same time granted to a William Sayer and his wife Margaret, who appears to have been a Tresham by birth; these properties were also granted to Brampton by Richard in 1484.

But then after Bosworth Henry VII passed another Act of Resumption from which Sir Edward, unsurprisingly, got no exemption (and which I imagine restored the Treshams though I haven't checked). So from now on Sir Edward had no property in England. This probably explains why he almost never came back to England after this, and why, when he did visit in 1488, he stayed at the Domus Conversorum.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-06 09:49:27
Hilary Jones
Yes there is a William Vaux in between. Thyrning gave Harrowden in 1410 to the father of the Sir William Vaux who died in 1460. And our lawyer was dead by then. So if he did indeed die in 1428 that would date Isabel to the 1420s at the latest. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 09:24:07 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie (and Nico) I've done a bit more now.
Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later)
The Houghtons seem to have come to him through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death. William had also a daughter Margaret who married William Harweden of Harrowden. She is mentioned as the daughter of William and Eleanor in the IPM of her mother in law Margery St John. Church Brampton belonged to the Latimers. So this would appear to be the right family (i.e. not the Vauxs of Cumberland). I suppose Isabel could have been the daughter of Sir William (died 1460) if you want to date her later. Thyrning was married to the sister of Sir Gerard Braybrooke, so that also fits with some documents.

You've probably seen this:

'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'

Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother. There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own. And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed. That's as far as I've got to date. H

On Sunday, 5 August 2018, 20:56:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Your Isabel Vaux is the one married to:-

(1) Sir William Tresham

(2) Sir William Pecche,

(3) Edward Brampton,

but we think her more likely to have been a young second wife of Sir William and not Thomas' mother, particularly as her father is said to have been Sir William Vaux, not William Vaux Esquire. (Too many Williams,) If so, she may easily have been born as late as 1430, and her nabbing young, and as yet childless, second and third husbands would make total sense.


Edward Brampton was definitely not committing bigamy. Isabel, Lady Pecche, died about the beginning of November 1479 - we have a writ of diem clausit extremum - and the Tresham lands she had held in dower were then granted to her widower, Edward Brampton. There is no evidence of Margaret Beaumont as his wife as early as this.


Nico has a evidence of will from a Beaumont Archdeacon of Bath and Wells which mentions Margaret, Lady Brampton, as a close kinswoman, but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.



And, to Nico,


I understand a bit more about the fate of the Tresham lands now. I mentioned that Sir Thomas Tresham was attainted in 1461, and his lands afterwards granted to the Donnes, and then in 1465 - although he had now been pardoned - the reversion of Isabel's dower portion was also granted to the Donnes on her death.


What I now realise is that these grants were voided by the Act of Resumption of 1467, passed by the same parliament that granted Sir Thomas Tresham his lands back. But Thomas fought for Lancaster at Tewkesbury, was executed and then re-attainted in 1472. This meant that Isabel's dower properties would again revert to the crown on her death and the King could grant them to whoever he felt appropriate. So in 1480 he passed them - or some of them at any rate - to Isabel's widower, which seems fair enough. More Tresham lands were at around the same time granted to a William Sayer and his wife Margaret, who appears to have been a Tresham by birth; these properties were also granted to Brampton by Richard in 1484.

But then after Bosworth Henry VII passed another Act of Resumption from which Sir Edward, unsurprisingly, got no exemption (and which I imagine restored the Treshams though I haven't checked). So from now on Sir Edward had no property in England. This probably explains why he almost never came back to England after this, and why, when he did visit in 1488, he stayed at the Domus Conversorum.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-06 13:19:31
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
It is very interesting that Isabel was holding the Houghtons in her own right in 1464. John Donne/Downe was granted the reversion the Houghtons in 1465, which names Pecche as her husband. That would date her marriage to Pecche to 1464-5, but she was married to Brampton by 1472. If it was Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone, it could have been a very brief marriage which was quickly annulled, although I had considered the possibility of a different William Pecche, but I could only find one Sir William. Another thing that makes me think that she wasn't Sir Thomas Tresham's mother is that he is said to have had a sister named Isabel who married Henry Vaux, and appears to be closer in age to Sir Thomas son John than Thomas himself. Unless she was actually Sir Thomas daughter, not his sister, I would say that it is likely that she his much younger half-sister and Isabel, her mother is the daughter of the 1428 William or possibly the 1460 one. I'm still going to take a look to see if there is any indication in the Tresham lands for Sir William's first wife.

As for Brampton, I think it is clear that he wasn't a bigamist and Arthurson and Rosemary Horrox may have read too much into misinformation, so that leads back to the possibility that Richard could have entrusted him with Richard of Shrewsbury. A big question for me in the Perkin story was Brampton, as I don't believe that he would have entrusted a vulnerable nephew to a person of dubious character, however useful or competent they were for official activities, and a gold digging bigamist would have been completely out of the question.
The relevant part of Thomas Beaumont's will (1507) reads:
"To Maister Edward Brampton an hope (hoop) of golde to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of golde with a flatte diamonde, and
to eche of their children, i.e., Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s. with this scripture to be made withinin everyche of the same hoopes, "ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these same rynges to be made and sent into Portingale (Portugal) unto them by some sure messynger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-b
Slektsforum :: Vis emne - Sir Edward Brampton

Slektsforum :: Vis emne - Sir Edward Brampton


Nico
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 09:49:34 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes there is a William Vaux in between. Thyrning gave Harrowden in 1410 to the father of the Sir William Vaux who died in 1460. And our lawyer was dead by then. So if he did indeed die in 1428 that would date Isabel to the 1420s at the latest. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 09:24:07 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie (and Nico) I've done a bit more now.
Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later)
The Houghtons seem to have come to him through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death. William had also a daughter Margaret who married William Harweden of Harrowden. She is mentioned as the daughter of William and Eleanor in the IPM of her mother in law Margery St John. Church Brampton belonged to the Latimers. So this would appear to be the right family (i.e. not the Vauxs of Cumberland). I suppose Isabel could have been the daughter of Sir William (died 1460) if you want to date her later. Thyrning was married to the sister of Sir Gerard Braybrooke, so that also fits with some documents.

You've probably seen this:

'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'

Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother. There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own. And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed. That's as far as I've got to date. H

On Sunday, 5 August 2018, 20:56:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Your Isabel Vaux is the one married to:-

(1) Sir William Tresham

(2) Sir William Pecche,

(3) Edward Brampton,

but we think her more likely to have been a young second wife of Sir William and not Thomas' mother, particularly as her father is said to have been Sir William Vaux, not William Vaux Esquire. (Too many Williams,) If so, she may easily have been born as late as 1430, and her nabbing young, and as yet childless, second and third husbands would make total sense.


Edward Brampton was definitely not committing bigamy. Isabel, Lady Pecche, died about the beginning of November 1479 - we have a writ of diem clausit extremum - and the Tresham lands she had held in dower were then granted to her widower, Edward Brampton. There is no evidence of Margaret Beaumont as his wife as early as this.


Nico has a evidence of will from a Beaumont Archdeacon of Bath and Wells which mentions Margaret, Lady Brampton, as a close kinswoman, but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.



And, to Nico,


I understand a bit more about the fate of the Tresham lands now. I mentioned that Sir Thomas Tresham was attainted in 1461, and his lands afterwards granted to the Donnes, and then in 1465 - although he had now been pardoned - the reversion of Isabel's dower portion was also granted to the Donnes on her death.


What I now realise is that these grants were voided by the Act of Resumption of 1467, passed by the same parliament that granted Sir Thomas Tresham his lands back. But Thomas fought for Lancaster at Tewkesbury, was executed and then re-attainted in 1472. This meant that Isabel's dower properties would again revert to the crown on her death and the King could grant them to whoever he felt appropriate. So in 1480 he passed them - or some of them at any rate - to Isabel's widower, which seems fair enough. More Tresham lands were at around the same time granted to a William Sayer and his wife Margaret, who appears to have been a Tresham by birth; these properties were also granted to Brampton by Richard in 1484.

But then after Bosworth Henry VII passed another Act of Resumption from which Sir Edward, unsurprisingly, got no exemption (and which I imagine restored the Treshams though I haven't checked). So from now on Sir Edward had no property in England. This probably explains why he almost never came back to England after this, and why, when he did visit in 1488, he stayed at the Domus Conversorum.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-06 21:04:14
mariewalsh2003
Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-06 21:13:07
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:-Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later).
Marie replies:Yes, we have the three consecutive William Vauxs, the last two knights. If you look back through the posts you will see how far I got with this.There is, as I stated, no supporting evidence other than the 17th century Visitation, which says that:-a) she was a daughter of "Sir William Vaux of Harrowden", andb) she was the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham.Both these statements clearly cannot be correct. Standard genealogies have favoured the former statement since no other wife has been identified for Sir William Tresham, and therefore have made Isabel a daughter of William Vaux, Esquire (d. 1405). Nico and I have noticed that no one has found an early reference to her as Sir William Tresham's wife and that her life story (including Sir William Pecche's apparent lack of interest in helping Sir Thomas Tresham) would work much better if she had been a young second wife of Sir William Tresham and thus only Sir Thomas' stepmother. That is as far as we got. Early references to Sir William Tresham with a wife are badly needed.
As regards Harrowden, that never belonged to William Vaux Esquire (d. 1405). The first Vaux to own Great Harrowden was Sir Nicholas (b. c. 1460), who inherited on the deaths of Richard and Thomas Harrowden, sons of William Harrowden (d. 1487) and Nicholas Vaux's sister Margaret.

Hilary wrote:
The Houghtons seem to have come to him
Marie replies:By him, I ascertain that you mean William Vaux, Esquire.

Hilary continued:through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death.
Marie replies:What is your source for William Thyrning holding Hanging Houghton? evidence for this manor having come to the Vauxs through the Thirnings? The VCH has this manor as belonging to the Paveleys and then the St. Johns before being acquired in some manner by William Tresham.


Hilary wrote:You've probably seen this:
'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'
Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
Marie replies:Yes indeed. That date is 1459 in normal speak, and it refers back to an earlier deed in which William Vaux, Thomas Tresham and the rest had been enfeoffed of Stepney to the use of Sir William Pecche and his wife Isabel. Stepney and Asshews had been inherited by William Pecche from his maternal great-aunt in 1446 - this is all in my earlier posts.William Vaux is an esquire in this because he was not knighted until 1460. Same with Thomas Tresham.
Hilary wrote:I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother.
Marie replies:See above.

Hilary wrote:There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
Marie replies:It's not a 'consensus' - I would be uninterested in a consensus - there is incontrovertible documentary evidence, i.e. a writ of diem clausit extremum to the sheriff of Northampton in respect of 'Isabel late the wife of William Pecchy knight', and then a grant to Edward Brampton of those same dower lands as 'late of Isabel Pecche, his late wife' and in the king's hands by the forfeiture of Sir Thomas Tresham. It's all in the patent rolls.

Hilary wrote:
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own.
Marie replies:Your confusion is not surprising, but again all I can say is look back over the earlier posts. Sorting out the muddle took quite a lot of work. In a nutshell, yes, to my amazement he definitely was the same Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone - no dying earlier and leaving a son of the same name. I traced him through, and in fact in 1484 he obtained confirmation of a royal pension he had been granted in 1461. He married three times, and his first wife, Isabel Vaux-Tresham, was still alive when they each took fresh spouses so this is why I say there must indeed have been an annulment as Roth suggested.
What IPM from 1464 are you referring to? The IPMs from that period haven't been published yet. Are you maybe thinking of the various grants made of the Tresham lands in the early 1460s, after Sir Thomas' first attainder, which are dealt with in rather a muddled way in the secondary sources?In a nutshell:1) In 1462 Sir John Donne and his heirs were granted a list of lands that had been forfeited by Sir Thomas Tresham for treason. These included Great Houghton and Hanging Houghton (CPR, p. 111).2) In 1463 and 1464 other properties of Sir Thomas Tresham's were granted to Clarence (CPR, p.226) and Ralph Hasting (CPR, p. 369). None of these grants makes any mention of Isabel.3) On 11 March 1465 Sir John Donne and his heirs were granted bits and pieces of various Tresham properties, including bits and pieces in Great Houghton, "on the death of Isabel the wife of William Peche, knight, who holds the same in dower" (CPR, pp. 430-1). So it's quite clear - Isabel simply held the traditional dower share (one third) across all her husband's properties; she did not hold Great Houghton in her own right. These dower lands were exempt from confiscation until her death since they had never been in Sir Thomas Tresham's hands, but as Sir T. T's inheritance, would go to the Crown - or to whoever the King decided - when she died.
Hilary wrote:And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed.
Marie replies:Are you sure they are two different Sir William Pecches (as opposed, say, to a Sir William Pecche and a plain William Pecche, or separate writs of diem clausit extremum to separate county escheators)? Could you possibly let us have the reference?
I'm sorry to sound an absolute pain, but could I plead with you to study what has already been posted on this before offering any more thoughts, because I've spent about three hours looking up my notes and writing out this post, which is mainly to clarify what we had already established. The problem is, I really don't have time to come back again.
Best,Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 03:56:10
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Yes there is a William Vaux in between. Thyrning gave Harrowden in 1410 to the father of the Sir William Vaux who died in 1460. And our lawyer was dead by then. So if he did indeed die in 1428 that would date Isabel to the 1420s at the latest.


Marie replies:

Would this not have been simply some sort of enfeoffment? According to the VCH, Harrowden belonged to the Harrowdens for long after this.

How do you know this William Vaux was the father of the Sir William Vaux who died in 1460?

Please could you let us have a reference?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 10:21:29
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, sorry, but as I explained I hadn't got your other stuff - it had been spammed. I couldn't look because I never knew it existed! But many apologies. Just tell me to look on the website next time. Many apologies again.
Re Thryning, I'll send you the links.
The two Sir William Peches are in a list of names in the CPR. I'll send you that link.
The IPM was an extract from one of the ones on Thomas Tresham C145/321. But I now have the lot. Will come back to you on that. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 21:13:13 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:-Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later).
Marie replies:Yes, we have the three consecutive William Vauxs, the last two knights. If you look back through the posts you will see how far I got with this.There is, as I stated, no supporting evidence other than the 17th century Visitation, which says that:-a) she was a daughter of "Sir William Vaux of Harrowden", andb) she was the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham.Both these statements clearly cannot be correct. Standard genealogies have favoured the former statement since no other wife has been identified for Sir William Tresham, and therefore have made Isabel a daughter of William Vaux, Esquire (d. 1405). Nico and I have noticed that no one has found an early reference to her as Sir William Tresham's wife and that her life story (including Sir William Pecche's apparent lack of interest in helping Sir Thomas Tresham) would work much better if she had been a young second wife of Sir William Tresham and thus only Sir Thomas' stepmother. That is as far as we got. Early references to Sir William Tresham with a wife are badly needed.
As regards Harrowden, that never belonged to William Vaux Esquire (d. 1405). The first Vaux to own Great Harrowden was Sir Nicholas (b. c. 1460), who inherited on the deaths of Richard and Thomas Harrowden, sons of William Harrowden (d. 1487) and Nicholas Vaux's sister Margaret.

Hilary wrote:
The Houghtons seem to have come to him
Marie replies:By him, I ascertain that you mean William Vaux, Esquire.

Hilary continued:through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death.
Marie replies:What is your source for William Thyrning holding Hanging Houghton? evidence for this manor having come to the Vauxs through the Thirnings? The VCH has this manor as belonging to the Paveleys and then the St. Johns before being acquired in some manner by William Tresham.


Hilary wrote:You've probably seen this:
'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'
Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
Marie replies:Yes indeed. That date is 1459 in normal speak, and it refers back to an earlier deed in which William Vaux, Thomas Tresham and the rest had been enfeoffed of Stepney to the use of Sir William Pecche and his wife Isabel. Stepney and Asshews had been inherited by William Pecche from his maternal great-aunt in 1446 - this is all in my earlier posts.William Vaux is an esquire in this because he was not knighted until 1460. Same with Thomas Tresham.
Hilary wrote:I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother.
Marie replies:See above.

Hilary wrote:There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
Marie replies:It's not a 'consensus' - I would be uninterested in a consensus - there is incontrovertible documentary evidence, i.e. a writ of diem clausit extremum to the sheriff of Northampton in respect of 'Isabel late the wife of William Pecchy knight', and then a grant to Edward Brampton of those same dower lands as 'late of Isabel Pecche, his late wife' and in the king's hands by the forfeiture of Sir Thomas Tresham. It's all in the patent rolls.

Hilary wrote:
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own.
Marie replies:Your confusion is not surprising, but again all I can say is look back over the earlier posts. Sorting out the muddle took quite a lot of work. In a nutshell, yes, to my amazement he definitely was the same Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone - no dying earlier and leaving a son of the same name. I traced him through, and in fact in 1484 he obtained confirmation of a royal pension he had been granted in 1461. He married three times, and his first wife, Isabel Vaux-Tresham, was still alive when they each took fresh spouses so this is why I say there must indeed have been an annulment as Roth suggested.
What IPM from 1464 are you referring to? The IPMs from that period haven't been published yet. Are you maybe thinking of the various grants made of the Tresham lands in the early 1460s, after Sir Thomas' first attainder, which are dealt with in rather a muddled way in the secondary sources?In a nutshell:1) In 1462 Sir John Donne and his heirs were granted a list of lands that had been forfeited by Sir Thomas Tresham for treason. These included Great Houghton and Hanging Houghton (CPR, p. 111).2) In 1463 and 1464 other properties of Sir Thomas Tresham's were granted to Clarence (CPR, p.226) and Ralph Hasting (CPR, p. 369). None of these grants makes any mention of Isabel.3) On 11 March 1465 Sir John Donne and his heirs were granted bits and pieces of various Tresham properties, including bits and pieces in Great Houghton, "on the death of Isabel the wife of William Peche, knight, who holds the same in dower" (CPR, pp. 430-1). So it's quite clear - Isabel simply held the traditional dower share (one third) across all her husband's properties; she did not hold Great Houghton in her own right. These dower lands were exempt from confiscation until her death since they had never been in Sir Thomas Tresham's hands, but as Sir T. T's inheritance, would go to the Crown - or to whoever the King decided - when she died.
Hilary wrote:And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed.
Marie replies:Are you sure they are two different Sir William Pecches (as opposed, say, to a Sir William Pecche and a plain William Pecche, or separate writs of diem clausit extremum to separate county escheators)? Could you possibly let us have the reference?
I'm sorry to sound an absolute pain, but could I plead with you to study what has already been posted on this before offering any more thoughts, because I've spent about three hours looking up my notes and writing out this post, which is mainly to clarify what we had already established. The problem is, I really don't have time to come back again.
Best,Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 10:27:13
Hilary Jones
You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way? H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 23:03:12 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
It is very interesting that Isabel was holding the Houghtons in her own right in 1464. John Donne/Downe was granted the reversion the Houghtons in 1465, which names Pecche as her husband. That would date her marriage to Pecche to 1464-5, but she was married to Brampton by 1472. If it was Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone, it could have been a very brief marriage which was quickly annulled, although I had considered the possibility of a different William Pecche, but I could only find one Sir William. Another thing that makes me think that she wasn't Sir Thomas Tresham's mother is that he is said to have had a sister named Isabel who married Henry Vaux, and appears to be closer in age to Sir Thomas son John than Thomas himself. Unless she was actually Sir Thomas daughter, not his sister, I would say that it is likely that she his much younger half-sister and Isabel, her mother is the daughter of the 1428 William or possibly the 1460 one. I'm still going to take a look to see if there is any indication in the Tresham lands for Sir William's first wife.

As for Brampton, I think it is clear that he wasn't a bigamist and Arthurson and Rosemary Horrox may have read too much into misinformation, so that leads back to the possibility that Richard could have entrusted him with Richard of Shrewsbury. A big question for me in the Perkin story was Brampton, as I don't believe that he would have entrusted a vulnerable nephew to a person of dubious character, however useful or competent they were for official activities, and a gold digging bigamist would have been completely out of the question.
The relevant part of Thomas Beaumont's will (1507) reads:
"To Maister Edward Brampton an hope (hoop) of golde to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of golde with a flatte diamonde, and
to eche of their children, i.e., Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s. with this scripture to be made withinin everyche of the same hoopes, "ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these same rynges to be made and sent into Portingale (Portugal) unto them by some sure messynger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-b
Slektsforum :: Vis emne - Sir Edward Brampton

Slektsforum :: Vis emne - Sir Edward Brampton


Nico
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 09:49:34 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes there is a William Vaux in between. Thyrning gave Harrowden in 1410 to the father of the Sir William Vaux who died in 1460. And our lawyer was dead by then. So if he did indeed die in 1428 that would date Isabel to the 1420s at the latest. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 09:24:07 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie (and Nico) I've done a bit more now.
Isabel's father appears to be William Vaux of Bottisham Cambridgeshire (and later Harrowden) who was a lawyer and died (by consensus of several documents but no IPM yet) in 1405. He married Eleanor Drakelow from whom he acquired Wilby in Northants. His son was the Sir William Vaux who married Maud Lucy and died in 1460, the father of Sir William Vaux who married Catherine Peniston. (but see later)
The Houghtons seem to have come to him through his mother, Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William Thyrning the Judge who is well documented and the latter held Hanging Houghton for a time after Vaux's death. William had also a daughter Margaret who married William Harweden of Harrowden. She is mentioned as the daughter of William and Eleanor in the IPM of her mother in law Margery St John. Church Brampton belonged to the Latimers. So this would appear to be the right family (i.e. not the Vauxs of Cumberland). I suppose Isabel could have been the daughter of Sir William (died 1460) if you want to date her later. Thyrning was married to the sister of Sir Gerard Braybrooke, so that also fits with some documents.

You've probably seen this:

'C. 4128. Writing indented whereby William Vaux and Thomas Tresham, esquires, Thomas Billyng, serjeant-at-law, John Gage, esquire, William Isle, and John Clifford (reciting that Thomas Ballard, John Wode, esqs., Nicholas Sibile, gent., John Donet, gent., John Langwith, tailor, and Thomas Fermory, scrivener, citizens of London, had demised to them and John Martyn and William Hillys, since deceased, and John Moreker, who survives but has released his right to them, all the manors, &c., co. Middlesex, which they, the said Ballard and the others, had, inter alia, by the gift of William Pecche, knt., to hold to them, the said William Vaux, and the others, to the use of the said William Pecche, knt., and Isabel, his wife, for the term of her life) release and give back to the said Ballard and the others all their estate in the said manors, &c. in the parish of Stebenhithe, parcel of the said manors, &c. in co. Middlesex (except the manor of Asshewyes with the great field thereto adjacent, containing 50a., the east part of which field is in the parish of Stebenhithe, and the residue in the parish of St. Mary Matfellon) &c. 28 Feb., 37 Henry VI. Seals.'

Vaux is definitely an esquire there though. There is one note in the VCH which puts another William Vaux who supposedly died in 1428 between William (1405) and Sir William (1460). I haven't managed to trace him yet. If he did exist then that would put Isabel no later than 1428 rather than 1405.
I'm not sure about Thomas Tresham being her son either, but there is one document, though not contemporary, which calls her his mother. There seems to be a consensus that she died in about 1480, when Brampton was given her lands. I agree he wasn't a bygamist.
The person who confuses me is Sir William Pecche, I just can't find him except in a couple of documents like the one above. He isn't the Sir William of Lullingstone who died in 1487 and whose wife survived him. He must have died about 1464 when in an IPM Isabel is quoted as holding the Houghtons on her own. And in fact in one of the CPRs there are two Sir William Pecches listed. That's as far as I've got to date. H

On Sunday, 5 August 2018, 20:56:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Your Isabel Vaux is the one married to:-

(1) Sir William Tresham

(2) Sir William Pecche,

(3) Edward Brampton,

but we think her more likely to have been a young second wife of Sir William and not Thomas' mother, particularly as her father is said to have been Sir William Vaux, not William Vaux Esquire. (Too many Williams,) If so, she may easily have been born as late as 1430, and her nabbing young, and as yet childless, second and third husbands would make total sense.


Edward Brampton was definitely not committing bigamy. Isabel, Lady Pecche, died about the beginning of November 1479 - we have a writ of diem clausit extremum - and the Tresham lands she had held in dower were then granted to her widower, Edward Brampton. There is no evidence of Margaret Beaumont as his wife as early as this.


Nico has a evidence of will from a Beaumont Archdeacon of Bath and Wells which mentions Margaret, Lady Brampton, as a close kinswoman, but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.



And, to Nico,


I understand a bit more about the fate of the Tresham lands now. I mentioned that Sir Thomas Tresham was attainted in 1461, and his lands afterwards granted to the Donnes, and then in 1465 - although he had now been pardoned - the reversion of Isabel's dower portion was also granted to the Donnes on her death.


What I now realise is that these grants were voided by the Act of Resumption of 1467, passed by the same parliament that granted Sir Thomas Tresham his lands back. But Thomas fought for Lancaster at Tewkesbury, was executed and then re-attainted in 1472. This meant that Isabel's dower properties would again revert to the crown on her death and the King could grant them to whoever he felt appropriate. So in 1480 he passed them - or some of them at any rate - to Isabel's widower, which seems fair enough. More Tresham lands were at around the same time granted to a William Sayer and his wife Margaret, who appears to have been a Tresham by birth; these properties were also granted to Brampton by Richard in 1484.

But then after Bosworth Henry VII passed another Act of Resumption from which Sir Edward, unsurprisingly, got no exemption (and which I imagine restored the Treshams though I haven't checked). So from now on Sir Edward had no property in England. This probably explains why he almost never came back to England after this, and why, when he did visit in 1488, he stayed at the Domus Conversorum.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 10:31:45
Hilary Jones
With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 11:51:07
Hilary Jones
Part of the answer may lie in the Fine Rolls for 1465 which I can't seem to access. See fn 73 below:
Humphrey Belcher, previously mentioned as sole surviving feoffee under the settlement made of Lamport by Sir William Trussell in 1475, was returned as holding, at his own death in 1501, 4 messuages 5 virgates of land and 6s. rent in Hanging Houghton held of the most excellent prince [Arthur, eldest son of King Henry VII]. (fn. 68) His son Roger succeeded to this estate, which appears, according to Bridges, quoting Montagu evidences, to have been bought by Sir Edward Montagu, (fn. 69) as were also certain lands and rents in Hanging Houghton, formerly held by Sir Thomas Tresham. They had been forfeited by him under the Act of Attainder of 1462, and granted to John Donne, (fn. 70) who in 1489 had the custody of the lord of Lamport Manor during his minority, (fn. 71) and who with his wife Elizabeth received a fresh grant of the Tresham lands on 11 March 1465. (fn. 72) Isabel the wife of Sir William Pecche was holding these lands in dower, as widow of Sir Thomas. (fn. 73).

Widow of Sir Thomas not William. Sorry if you've seen this.
Here is the link for the Thirnings and Vaux (Bottisham) and there does appear to be a William Vaux IV between the lawyer (died 1405) and Sir William (d 1460) again I can't find it in the reference.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol10/pp196-205#fnn142
H
On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:50 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-07 22:26:54
Nicholas Brown
Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-08 13:06:39
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-08 13:30:50
Hilary Jones
Sorry, sorry, sorry - touch of the sun! I mean Katherine Neville, who was the wife of John Woodville - not Katherine Woodville wife of Bucks. But it still gives the link to the Woodvilles, though not Bucks. Too many Williams, Thomas's and Katherines!
Again many apologies! H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-08 15:04:21
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-08 22:25:59
Nicholas Brown
Absolutely right, too many people in the Wars of the Roses with the same name, and it leads to confusion in the records! The 1400s weren't very adventurous with names; you find much more interesting ones a century or so earlier. I'm still checking Beaumonts, but Margaret and Thomas may be hard to find; perhaps children of a younger son not recorded in the visitations. FWIW, since Margaret had 6 children with Brampton after 1480, she must have been a good deal younger than him, so I would guess a birthdate closer to 1460 for her.
Nico

On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 17:34:55 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, sorry, sorry - touch of the sun! I mean Katherine Neville, who was the wife of John Woodville - not Katherine Woodville wife of Bucks. But it still gives the link to the Woodvilles, though not Bucks. Too many Williams, Thomas's and Katherines!
Again many apologies! H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-09 09:52:21
Hilary Jones
Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-10 13:45:36
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-13 09:47:40
Hilary Jones
Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-13 21:26:31
Nicholas Brown
I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-14 09:48:20
Hilary Jones
Nico I'm helping a house move today but I'll have a look tomorrow. H
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 21:26:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-14 14:13:25
Nicholas Brown
Thanks.

On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 13:51:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I'm helping a house move today but I'll have a look tomorrow. H
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 21:26:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-22 10:09:49
Hilary Jones
Nico, I've spent ages looking at this and still can't come up with the 'right' Thomas or Margaret.
If you look at the family of John Beaumont (d 1396) and Katherine Everingham - and we have IPMs for both - there are two sons, Sir Henry and Thomas. Thomas is your ancestor of the Grace Dieu Beaumonts. Sir Henry had two sons, Sir John and Sir Henry. Sir John died at the Battle of Northampton 1460 and had Henry (died age 11 in Aug 1441), Joan who was the mother of Francis Lovell and Sir William who died chidless in 1507. Again it's pretty well documented. Sir Henry seems only to have had another Sir Henry, whose son, Sir John, had three daughters.
Going back to Thomas (married to Philippa Maureward), he had a son John, who had two sons, George and Sir John. They were staunch Lancastrians. Thomas's' other son, Thomas, had a succession of Thomas's (all married), culminating in the Grace Dieu line which started about 1503. So I can't squeeze another Thomas or Margaret in. Same with Gittisham in Devon. It could well be that some of them had more than one child, so I'll keep looking.
However, and it's quite a big however, I can see why Brampton would chose to marry from the Beaumont/Everingham branch. Because if he did so he would be marrying a direct descendant of Henry III and his children would have Plantagenet blood. To someone with his background that could mean a great deal; perhaps more than money which he already had?
So there's a thought. H


On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 14:13:44 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks.

On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 13:51:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I'm helping a house move today but I'll have a look tomorrow. H
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 21:26:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-22 13:55:50
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for looking into that Hilary. The Henry that I was thinking of was the third son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward. He is listed in the Visitations of Devon (1531), page 63 on the Hathi version. It doesn't give any indication of whether he was married with children or not or if he died young. Alternatively, Thomas and Margaret could have descended from a younger, unlisted son from an earlier generation and therefore very difficult if not impossible to place. If Margaret was from the Gittisham branch, I was wondering about possible connections to MB that may have divided Brampton's loyalties, but I can't find any.

Nico
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 10:09:54 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I've spent ages looking at this and still can't come up with the 'right' Thomas or Margaret.
If you look at the family of John Beaumont (d 1396) and Katherine Everingham - and we have IPMs for both - there are two sons, Sir Henry and Thomas. Thomas is your ancestor of the Grace Dieu Beaumonts. Sir Henry had two sons, Sir John and Sir Henry. Sir John died at the Battle of Northampton 1460 and had Henry (died age 11 in Aug 1441), Joan who was the mother of Francis Lovell and Sir William who died chidless in 1507. Again it's pretty well documented.. Sir Henry seems only to have had another Sir Henry, whose son, Sir John, had three daughters.
Going back to Thomas (married to Philippa Maureward), he had a son John, who had two sons, George and Sir John. They were staunch Lancastrians. Thomas's' other son, Thomas, had a succession of Thomas's (all married), culminating in the Grace Dieu line which started about 1503. So I can't squeeze another Thomas or Margaret in. Same with Gittisham in Devon. It could well be that some of them had more than one child, so I'll keep looking.
However, and it's quite a big however, I can see why Brampton would chose to marry from the Beaumont/Everingham branch. Because if he did so he would be marrying a direct descendant of Henry III and his children would have Plantagenet blood. To someone with his background that could mean a great deal; perhaps more than money which he already had?
So there's a thought. H


On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 14:13:44 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks.

On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 13:51:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I'm helping a house move today but I'll have a look tomorrow. H
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 21:26:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-08-23 10:10:07
Hilary Jones
Thanks I'll have a look. I looked at the Visitation of Leics which could well be different to Devon. H
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 13:56:01 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for looking into that Hilary. The Henry that I was thinking of was the third son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward. He is listed in the Visitations of Devon (1531), page 63 on the Hathi version.. It doesn't give any indication of whether he was married with children or not or if he died young. Alternatively, Thomas and Margaret could have descended from a younger, unlisted son from an earlier generation and therefore very difficult if not impossible to place. If Margaret was from the Gittisham branch, I was wondering about possible connections to MB that may have divided Brampton's loyalties, but I can't find any.

Nico
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 10:09:54 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I've spent ages looking at this and still can't come up with the 'right' Thomas or Margaret.
If you look at the family of John Beaumont (d 1396) and Katherine Everingham - and we have IPMs for both - there are two sons, Sir Henry and Thomas. Thomas is your ancestor of the Grace Dieu Beaumonts. Sir Henry had two sons, Sir John and Sir Henry. Sir John died at the Battle of Northampton 1460 and had Henry (died age 11 in Aug 1441), Joan who was the mother of Francis Lovell and Sir William who died chidless in 1507. Again it's pretty well documented.. Sir Henry seems only to have had another Sir Henry, whose son, Sir John, had three daughters.
Going back to Thomas (married to Philippa Maureward), he had a son John, who had two sons, George and Sir John. They were staunch Lancastrians. Thomas's' other son, Thomas, had a succession of Thomas's (all married), culminating in the Grace Dieu line which started about 1503. So I can't squeeze another Thomas or Margaret in. Same with Gittisham in Devon. It could well be that some of them had more than one child, so I'll keep looking.
However, and it's quite a big however, I can see why Brampton would chose to marry from the Beaumont/Everingham branch.. Because if he did so he would be marrying a direct descendant of Henry III and his children would have Plantagenet blood. To someone with his background that could mean a great deal; perhaps more than money which he already had?
So there's a thought. H


On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 14:13:44 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks.

On Tuesday, 14 August 2018, 13:51:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I'm helping a house move today but I'll have a look tomorrow. H
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 21:26:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I had Henry the youngest brother of John Beaumont (d.1460) in mind for being Margaret and Thomas' father, but wouldn't rule out his other brother Thomas, who the visitation notes 'a quo Beaumont of Gracedieu.' I assume this mean that he is the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Gracedieu. His wife was Ann, but Emme could have been a second wife. Thomas the archdeacon only mentions Margaret and his mother in his will, suggesting that they are his only surviving immediate family, so Henry is the best fit. The visitation doesn't show any children for him, but he wasn't the direct heir and his descendants were through female line and lived in Portugal, so nothing unusual there. Do you know anything about the Beaumonts of Gittisham and where their loyalties lay? Were they Yorkist or Lancastrian?
It was surprising how close the Tresham properties were to Stony Stratford and Groby. The Woodvilles were very close neighbours. The records suggest that Brampton and Isabel did spend time on their estates, so there must have been some association with Anthony Woodville.
Neverthless, everything about Brampton indicates his loyalty to both Edward and Richard up until Bosworth, and - at least initially - he did nothing to court Henry VII. It was only after his loyalty to the King of Portugal fitted in with helping Henry that he testified against Perkin. I have often favoured the illegitimate son theory, but the more I look at Brampton, I lean towards the idea that Perkin was telling the truth. Whatever was going on, Brampton was up to his neck in it. When you examine the Confession, the timeline indicates that young Perkin's life started to fall apart around Bosworth. Perhaps Brampton was a short term guardian who put him in the Church school in Tournai, but had no idea or instructions as to what to do with him in the event of regime change, so Brampton did what he could for him in the following years. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, I also think it possible that Brampton may have encouraged his quest at the early stages, possibly in the hope that he and his English born children would be restored to their former estates, but later found a conflict of interest with his own Portuguese loyalties.
Nico
On Monday, 13 August 2018, 09:47:46 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I agree entirely. I also think he was from the West Country, probably part of the Gittisham Branch (where one line is illegitimate). They seem to have been the only one to use the name Margaret (i.e. the one who married John Chichester), and there is confusion over Thomas Beaumont's (died 1450) wives and their children. If our Thomas B matriculated from Oxford in 1484 then I guess he must have been born in the late 1460s, or even a bit later - some went up at 12.
But I also agree that the main point of this is that Brampton wasn't marrying (this time at least) for money, and his first marriage could have been a 'reward' from Edward? Certainly the Isabel marriage connected him with the Woodville set, they appear in some Vaux and Tresham deeds and it's right in their neighbourhood. The Beaumonts, as you say, gave him further gentry connections. BTW TB 1450 had a son John who was a priest. H
On Friday, 10 August 2018, 13:45:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I can't pin down Thomas and Margaret Beaumont precisely, but the will suggests that they are from the West Country Beaumonts. Other than his service at St. Clement's in London, his other parishes are in Somerset and Wiltshire. The visitations don't mention any of the Beaumonts marrying anyone called Emme, but they show a few Beaumonts from the relevant time where there isn't any indication whether they married or not. John Beaumont of Overton (d.1460, Northampton, but not the same one who married Katherine Neville) had two younger brothers, Thomas and Henry who are possible candidates for the father of Thomas and Margaret. One of Brampton's younger sons was named Henry and another George, which was the name of JB of Overton's younger son and eventual heir.

Thomas Beaumont's will indicates that he was from a family with some wealth, but not enormously so, and Margaret doesn't seem to have brought in any property that substantially enriched Brampton. This would fit in with them being from a junior branch of a prominent family. Therefore, rather than being an abused heiress who Brampton married for her money, it appears that he already had more than enough money and land from Isabel and his merchant activities, but Margaret was well connected.
Nico


On Thursday, 9 August 2018, 09:52:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks a million. BTW some emails are taking ages to get through. I wrote my correction one almost straight after the first one when I realised my gaffe. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 15:16:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Thomas Beaumonts will is a book of Somerset Wills by WF Weaver (1901). The only relatives that he lists are his sister Margaret (Brampton's wife), her children and his mother Emme Spayne. There are a few other beneficiaries and bequests to former parishes, so I'll have look and see what I can find on them. It isn't Katherine Woodville's Sir John Beaumont, but he could still be a nephew or cousin, so I wouldn't rule out that link yet. Here is the link, does anyone ring a bell? Here is the link:https://archive.org/stream/somersetmedieva01weavgoog#page/n136
Somerset medieval wills
Somerset medieval wills


Nico



On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 13:14:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico (and Marie), I am really struggling with Thomas (Archdeacon) and Margaret Beaumont. They certainly don't seem to come from the Devon Beaumonts or the Leicestershire ones so far. We could do with a full copy of TB's will where he might just mention his home.
A thought. Katherine Woodville (later Buck's wife) was married for a while to Sir John Beaumont, who died at the Battle of Northampton. He came from Norfolk and, to our knowledge, by his first wife Elizabeth Phelip (her dad has an IPM) had at least 3 children - Henry who died aged about 11, Joan, who married Sir John Lovel and was mother of Francis, and Sir William, who didn't die until 1507 and was childless. Is there any chance that Thomas and Margaret could have been his other children, making them born about 1440? This gives Brampton a strong Woodville (and Buckingham) connection.
Would make sense of some of Brampton's activities wouldn't it? But I could of course be completely wrong. More digging! H


On Wednesday, 8 August 2018, 01:08:00 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:You know regardless for a moment of who Isabel really was this has a ring of the Elizabeth Skilling, Joan Swete, Eleanor Butler. The older (but not too old) widow pleading her case. I know Isabel pleaded her Tresham cause (if she was that Isabel) in 1450, before Edward's time, but I wonder if he came across her later and pushed her Brampton's way?
This search does remind of the Elizabeth Skilling one. Another rich widow in distress, but when she made her claim it would have been to Henry VI who wouldn't have been interested in her. EIV liked older women though, and when her marriage to Pecche (who was in his service) collapsed, he may have introduced or passed her on to Brampton. I had been wondering how they could have met, but since the circumstantial evidence suggests that Brampton assisted with the readeption and they were married soon after, Edward could have been involved.
Nico

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 10:31:51 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With pleasure Marie! On checking the Tresham IPMs again 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton' and seems to be related to Agnes wife of William Nuncourt, since this land is held for life by both of them C145/321 13 Apr 1465. I'll try and chase William.
There is also something in the Fine Rolls about William Pecche and Isabel (quoted in the VCH). I can't access the ones for EIV. Can you let me know where I can - can't seem to get it through archive. H
On Monday, 6 August 2018, 22:35:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi both,
There's something wrong here. Will need to recheck sources but Isabel held all these lands in dower, for term of life only, and was married to Sir W Pecche before 1457.

Also, I'm prettty sure I have Gt Houghton in W Tresham's possession in the 1420s, with W Vaux as one of his feoffees, and the VCH does not say it was ever a Vaux property. Quite a large marriage portion for a girl with a brother, as well, so this just doesn't look right.
Hilary, could you possibly help by letting me have your sources? In return, I'f Be happy to email you my files.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-03 21:39:23
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


I'm sorry but yahoo is no longer letting me copy and paste the posts I'm replying to. This is about Isabel Vaux-Tresham-Pecche-Brampton. It's where you had said Isabel owned some property in her own right in 1464, and I said that wasn't right; it was a Tresham property and she held those in dower, and asked for your source, and you said C 145/321 where it says 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton'.


Thanks for that reference - I found that it's in vol 8 of the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, but I could only get it up on Google Books, which doesn't let you see all the pages involved. Do you know if that volume is available elsewhere online?


Anyway, this inquisition into the lands of Sir Thomas Tresham actually illustrates exactly what I was saying: Isabel held these lands for life - in dower as Sir William Tresham's widow, not in her own right. They were Tresham lands, not Vaux lands, and they had been due to revert to Thomas Tresham on her death. In fact, at the end of it inquisition it says "All the above premises belong and should come to the King by reason of Thomas' forfeiture."

I don't know where the other ladies named in the inquisition fit in, but they would have been related to Thomas Tresham, not to Isabel, as all of them were mentioned because they held land to which Sir Thomas had held the reversion.

I was really only looking into Isabel to a sufficient level to ascertain who she was in a general sense, and how her marriage to Brampton fitted with her marriage to Sir William Pecche. I'm afraid I don't have the time at all to research her or the Treshams in detail, but if you are interested in doing so that would be great.


You can access the Fine Rolls through the Medieval Genealogy website.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-04 10:09:46
Hilary Jones
Yes Marie. By pure good fortune I have the book! The IPM C145/321 which is the one on the web is the one held on 04 Mar 1466 before Guy Weston at Kettering. That's the one which refers to Isabel wife of William Peche, knight. The other one C145/321 is the one which refers to Isabel Peche is before Thomas Hunt at Northampton between March and September 1465. Since the reversion after their deaths was to Tresham, as you say they must have had a relationship to him. I haven't found Agnes Nuncourt.
If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton? If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable. Many thanks. H (that is of course if Yahoo will now let us cut and paste)

nOn Monday, 3 September 2018, 21:40:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


I'm sorry but yahoo is no longer letting me copy and paste the posts I'm replying to. This is about Isabel Vaux-Tresham-Pecche-Brampton. It's where you had said Isabel owned some property in her own right in 1464, and I said that wasn't right; it was a Tresham property and she held those in dower, and asked for your source, and you said C 145/321 where it says 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton'.


Thanks for that reference - I found that it's in vol 8 of the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, but I could only get it up on Google Books, which doesn't let you see all the pages involved. Do you know if that volume is available elsewhere online?


Anyway, this inquisition into the lands of Sir Thomas Tresham actually illustrates exactly what I was saying: Isabel held these lands for life - in dower as Sir William Tresham's widow, not in her own right. They were Tresham lands, not Vaux lands, and they had been due to revert to Thomas Tresham on her death. In fact, at the end of it inquisition it says "All the above premises belong and should come to the King by reason of Thomas' forfeiture."

I don't know where the other ladies named in the inquisition fit in, but they would have been related to Thomas Tresham, not to Isabel, as all of them were mentioned because they held land to which Sir Thomas had held the reversion.

I was really only looking into Isabel to a sufficient level to ascertain who she was in a general sense, and how her marriage to Brampton fitted with her marriage to Sir William Pecche. I'm afraid I don't have the time at all to research her or the Treshams in detail, but if you are interested in doing so that would be great.


You can access the Fine Rolls through the Medieval Genealogy website.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-04 13:09:49
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
I was also trying to find out who exactly Isabel was and where she fitted in. I haven't got time to do detailed research on the Treshams either, but I'm not quite finished with Brampton yet, so I may revisit Isabel either in relation to him or as another one of Edward's potential King's Widows. If I find anything interesting, I will let you know.
Nico
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, 10:09:49 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Marie. By pure good fortune I have the book! The IPM C145/321 which is the one on the web is the one held on 04 Mar 1466 before Guy Weston at Kettering. That's the one which refers to Isabel wife of William Peche, knight. The other one C145/321 is the one which refers to Isabel Peche is before Thomas Hunt at Northampton between March and September 1465. Since the reversion after their deaths was to Tresham, as you say they must have had a relationship to him. I haven't found Agnes Nuncourt.
If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton? If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable. Many thanks. H (that is of course if Yahoo will now let us cut and paste)

nOn Monday, 3 September 2018, 21:40:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


I'm sorry but yahoo is no longer letting me copy and paste the posts I'm replying to. This is about Isabel Vaux-Tresham-Pecche-Brampton. It's where you had said Isabel owned some property in her own right in 1464, and I said that wasn't right; it was a Tresham property and she held those in dower, and asked for your source, and you said C 145/321 where it says 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton'.


Thanks for that reference - I found that it's in vol 8 of the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, but I could only get it up on Google Books, which doesn't let you see all the pages involved. Do you know if that volume is available elsewhere online?


Anyway, this inquisition into the lands of Sir Thomas Tresham actually illustrates exactly what I was saying: Isabel held these lands for life - in dower as Sir William Tresham's widow, not in her own right. They were Tresham lands, not Vaux lands, and they had been due to revert to Thomas Tresham on her death. In fact, at the end of it inquisition it says "All the above premises belong and should come to the King by reason of Thomas' forfeiture."

I don't know where the other ladies named in the inquisition fit in, but they would have been related to Thomas Tresham, not to Isabel, as all of them were mentioned because they held land to which Sir Thomas had held the reversion.

I was really only looking into Isabel to a sufficient level to ascertain who she was in a general sense, and how her marriage to Brampton fitted with her marriage to Sir William Pecche. I'm afraid I don't have the time at all to research her or the Treshams in detail, but if you are interested in doing so that would be great.


You can access the Fine Rolls through the Medieval Genealogy website.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-04 14:10:41
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton?
Marie replies:I don't know whether a divorce settlement in the modern sense would have been applicable since we are talking about an annulment. Ending a valid marriage is a different thing from having a marriage pronounced invalid, which leaves the breadwinner with obligations that wouldn't apply in the case of the annulment (particularly of a childless union). What I do suppose is that Sir William Pecche would have had to return to Isabel whatever dowry she had come with, and so she would have had that to bring to a new marriage. Plus she had her life interest in 1/3 of the Tresham estates.I don't know whether she was a king's widow because I have to admit that I don't know (or don't remember) if Sir William Tresham was a tenant in chief, but the King's claim to the reversion of her Tresham dower resulting from Sir Thomas' attainder I suppose would have made her a sort of unofficial tenant-in-chief anyway. Certainly, I think Edward is likely to have wanted to control Isabel as mother/stepmother of one traitor and sister of another, so she may, like other Lancastrian ladies, have found herself either under house arrest (having to put up with a minder) or being told who to go and live with or what convent to retire to. This sort of situation could have brought her into contact with Brampton, and the King would certainly have approved the match though I think he is unlikely to have been cheeky enough to insist on it. Being married to someone who was such a trusted supporter of Edward's would, I'm sure, have been enough to satisfy him that she wouldn't need any further watching.It's an interesting one for Brampton, though. Most of Isabel's wealth was held for her life only, so unless Brampton was confident that Edward would grant him those Tresham properties on her death then perhaps it's another indication that Isabel may not have been as old as generally assumed, i.e. not Sir William Tresham's first wife.
Hilary:If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Marie:I agree. Certainly not a bigamist. I think poor old Brampton, as a supporter of Richard III, mentor of Perkin Warbeck, foreigner and converted Jew, has suffered from the coalescence of several different sorts of prejudice. He was certainly a character, but what amazes me is how little solid evidence I've found of real bad behaviour. I was even struck, when reading about the Portuguese trade with Africa, that here was everybody else visiting that particular coast for quantities of slaves, and Brampton was - so far as I've yet been able to make out - contenting himself with spice. It doesn't even look as though he took his own ships down there - just bought the grains of paradise from the merchants coming back, giving them English wool in return.
Hilary:
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable.
Marie
If you scroll down this page you should find all the Fine Rolls up to 1509:http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/rolls.shtml
Otherwise, hope these links to the individual volumes work:https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201285https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293024017927
If they don't work from here, you should be able to copy and paste them into your browser.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 10:38:37
Hilary Jones
Thanks Nico that sounds intriguing. I haven't forgotten the Devon Visitation thing for Beaumont. Will come back to you on that. H On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 00:43:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I was also trying to find out who exactly Isabel was and where she fitted in. I haven't got time to do detailed research on the Treshams either, but I'm not quite finished with Brampton yet, so I may revisit Isabel either in relation to him or as another one of Edward's potential King's Widows. If I find anything interesting, I will let you know.
Nico
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, 10:09:49 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Marie. By pure good fortune I have the book! The IPM C145/321 which is the one on the web is the one held on 04 Mar 1466 before Guy Weston at Kettering. That's the one which refers to Isabel wife of William Peche, knight. The other one C145/321 is the one which refers to Isabel Peche is before Thomas Hunt at Northampton between March and September 1465. Since the reversion after their deaths was to Tresham, as you say they must have had a relationship to him. I haven't found Agnes Nuncourt.
If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton? If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable. Many thanks. H (that is of course if Yahoo will now let us cut and paste)

nOn Monday, 3 September 2018, 21:40:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


I'm sorry but yahoo is no longer letting me copy and paste the posts I'm replying to. This is about Isabel Vaux-Tresham-Pecche-Brampton. It's where you had said Isabel owned some property in her own right in 1464, and I said that wasn't right; it was a Tresham property and she held those in dower, and asked for your source, and you said C 145/321 where it says 'Isabel Pecche holds land for life in Northampton'.


Thanks for that reference - I found that it's in vol 8 of the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, but I could only get it up on Google Books, which doesn't let you see all the pages involved. Do you know if that volume is available elsewhere online?


Anyway, this inquisition into the lands of Sir Thomas Tresham actually illustrates exactly what I was saying: Isabel held these lands for life - in dower as Sir William Tresham's widow, not in her own right. They were Tresham lands, not Vaux lands, and they had been due to revert to Thomas Tresham on her death. In fact, at the end of it inquisition it says "All the above premises belong and should come to the King by reason of Thomas' forfeiture."

I don't know where the other ladies named in the inquisition fit in, but they would have been related to Thomas Tresham, not to Isabel, as all of them were mentioned because they held land to which Sir Thomas had held the reversion.

I was really only looking into Isabel to a sufficient level to ascertain who she was in a general sense, and how her marriage to Brampton fitted with her marriage to Sir William Pecche. I'm afraid I don't have the time at all to research her or the Treshams in detail, but if you are interested in doing so that would be great.


You can access the Fine Rolls through the Medieval Genealogy website.


Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 10:42:40
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie! H On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, 14:10:56 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton?
Marie replies:I don't know whether a divorce settlement in the modern sense would have been applicable since we are talking about an annulment. Ending a valid marriage is a different thing from having a marriage pronounced invalid, which leaves the breadwinner with obligations that wouldn't apply in the case of the annulment (particularly of a childless union). What I do suppose is that Sir William Pecche would have had to return to Isabel whatever dowry she had come with, and so she would have had that to bring to a new marriage. Plus she had her life interest in 1/3 of the Tresham estates.I don't know whether she was a king's widow because I have to admit that I don't know (or don't remember) if Sir William Tresham was a tenant in chief, but the King's claim to the reversion of her Tresham dower resulting from Sir Thomas' attainder I suppose would have made her a sort of unofficial tenant-in-chief anyway. Certainly, I think Edward is likely to have wanted to control Isabel as mother/stepmother of one traitor and sister of another, so she may, like other Lancastrian ladies, have found herself either under house arrest (having to put up with a minder) or being told who to go and live with or what convent to retire to. This sort of situation could have brought her into contact with Brampton, and the King would certainly have approved the match though I think he is unlikely to have been cheeky enough to insist on it. Being married to someone who was such a trusted supporter of Edward's would, I'm sure, have been enough to satisfy him that she wouldn't need any further watching.It's an interesting one for Brampton, though. Most of Isabel's wealth was held for her life only, so unless Brampton was confident that Edward would grant him those Tresham properties on her death then perhaps it's another indication that Isabel may not have been as old as generally assumed, i.e. not Sir William Tresham's first wife.
Hilary:If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Marie:I agree. Certainly not a bigamist. I think poor old Brampton, as a supporter of Richard III, mentor of Perkin Warbeck, foreigner and converted Jew, has suffered from the coalescence of several different sorts of prejudice. He was certainly a character, but what amazes me is how little solid evidence I've found of real bad behaviour. I was even struck, when reading about the Portuguese trade with Africa, that here was everybody else visiting that particular coast for quantities of slaves, and Brampton was - so far as I've yet been able to make out - contenting himself with spice. It doesn't even look as though he took his own ships down there - just bought the grains of paradise from the merchants coming back, giving them English wool in return.
Hilary:
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable.
Marie
If you scroll down this page you should find all the Fine Rolls up to 1509:http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/rolls.shtml
Otherwise, hope these links to the individual volumes work:https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201285https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293024017927
If they don't work from here, you should be able to copy and paste them into your browser.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 11:46:33
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, 14:10:56 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:If Isabel was a divorcee then one could only assume she had a good divorce settlement to make her worth marrying? Nico and I did have a bit of a feel of a sort of 'king's widow' appeal and he may have recommended her to Brampton?
Marie replies:I don't know whether a divorce settlement in the modern sense would have been applicable since we are talking about an annulment. Ending a valid marriage is a different thing from having a marriage pronounced invalid, which leaves the breadwinner with obligations that wouldn't apply in the case of the annulment (particularly of a childless union). What I do suppose is that Sir William Pecche would have had to return to Isabel whatever dowry she had come with, and so she would have had that to bring to a new marriage. Plus she had her life interest in 1/3 of the Tresham estates.I don't know whether she was a king's widow because I have to admit that I don't know (or don't remember) if Sir William Tresham was a tenant in chief, but the King's claim to the reversion of her Tresham dower resulting from Sir Thomas' attainder I suppose would have made her a sort of unofficial tenant-in-chief anyway. Certainly, I think Edward is likely to have wanted to control Isabel as mother/stepmother of one traitor and sister of another, so she may, like other Lancastrian ladies, have found herself either under house arrest (having to put up with a minder) or being told who to go and live with or what convent to retire to. This sort of situation could have brought her into contact with Brampton, and the King would certainly have approved the match though I think he is unlikely to have been cheeky enough to insist on it. Being married to someone who was such a trusted supporter of Edward's would, I'm sure, have been enough to satisfy him that she wouldn't need any further watching.It's an interesting one for Brampton, though. Most of Isabel's wealth was held for her life only, so unless Brampton was confident that Edward would grant him those Tresham properties on her death then perhaps it's another indication that Isabel may not have been as old as generally assumed, i.e. not Sir William Tresham's first wife.
Hilary:If you see our other stuff I think you'll find that our conclusion so far is that whilst Brampton might have gained money through marriage to Isabel, he is unlikely to have gained any financial advantage in marrying Margaret Beaumont, who is leading us a right dance. Hence the assertion that Brampton was both a bigamist and a gold digger is almost certainly not true.
Marie:I agree. Certainly not a bigamist. I think poor old Brampton, as a supporter of Richard III, mentor of Perkin Warbeck, foreigner and converted Jew, has suffered from the coalescence of several different sorts of prejudice. He was certainly a character, but what amazes me is how little solid evidence I've found of real bad behaviour. I was even struck, when reading about the Portuguese trade with Africa, that here was everybody else visiting that particular coast for quantities of slaves, and Brampton was - so far as I've yet been able to make out - contenting himself with spice. It doesn't even look as though he took his own ships down there - just bought the grains of paradise from the merchants coming back, giving them English wool in return.
Hilary:
Could I ask you to send me a link to the Edward IV Fine Rolls?. I can access to the end of Henry VI but for some reason EIV seems unavailable.
Marie
If you scroll down this page you should find all the Fine Rolls up to 1509:http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/rolls.shtml
Otherwise, hope these links to the individual volumes work:https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201285https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293024017927
If they don't work from here, you should be able to copy and paste them into your browser.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 12:04:48
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 12:43:12
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary/Marie,
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.

Nico


On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:54 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 13:51:23
mariewalsh2003
Nico wrote:
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
Marie replies:Yes, you certainly do see widows of rebels married off to people loyal to the King. Edward IV did it, and so did Henry VII. Given what has become evident in recent years about the way these women were kept under control as wives and widows of rebels (see Anne Crawford's article 'Victims of Attainder', or Anne Sutton's information on Lady Hungerford in an article in the Ricardian a couple of years back), it's not that surprising that many of them preferred this route, provided the proposed husband seemed a decent person. Hobson's choice, I know. Of course, an actually forced marriage was not valid, so it had to be a matter of persuading the lady it was a good idea.
Nico:
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.
Marie:Hang on, now you've got me confused. The Pecche marriage was definitely nothing to do with Edward IV because there are documents from the late 1450s showing that the marriage had by then already taken place. Pecche seems to have been closely involved with the Vauxs at that time, at least with regard to enfeoffments of properties, and I got the impression the marriage may have been brokered by Isabel's brother/ nephew (brother, I think more likely).

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 14:13:22
Hilary Jones
Marie, sorry I didn't say that you or Nico alleged that, but some discussions/websites do. I was more interested in the fact that Margaret was yet another of Edward's placements. William Sayer seems to have been a Yorkshireman and clearly did well after Edward came to the throne. H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 14:26:12
Hilary Jones
Thanks for the clarification Nico. Yes it was BHOL! H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:55:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary/Marie,
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.

Nico


On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:54 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 16:20:52
mariewalsh2003
Hilary / Nico, I'm still confused.
I got all this stuff about Isabel Vaux sorted out yonks ago from primary sources and posted the details on the forum, so I thought job done' and I'm surprised the confused article on BHO has still been an issue.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 18:09:26
mariewalsh2003
Hi again Hilary,


Re your post suggesting Edward may have pushed Isabel Brampton's way after her Pecche marriage broke up.
It actually brings me to something I was going to post anyway.


About Edward's role, honestly, I'm not sure. It partly depends when they married. The annulment of the Pecche marriage may have been a little earlier than I originally thought, because:-
1) When I looked at Sir William Pecche's IPM, which is the source for his son's year of birth, I found that his age at the time of the IPM equated to a birth year of 1472, not 1473 as I had read. This would mean that the annulment must have come in during 1471 at the very latest. Perhaps they were divorced during the Re-adeption?
2) If Brandon (as he had been) changed his name to Brampton on account of his marriage to Isabel, then this must have occurred before June 1472, when, as Edward Brampton, he was appointed with William Fetherstone to command a fleet to protect the seas.
3) I'm thinking that it must have been the marriage which was the making of Edward Brampton, in the sense that it gave him an income which he could use to establish himself in the shipping business. That being the case, then he had perhaps been married to Isabel for a while when he got that appointment.
4) It was absolutely not the done thing to make a disparaging marriage for lady, and marriage to Edward Brampton at that time would have been socially disparaging to a knight's widow in a big way. Perhaps she'd actually just taken a fancy to him - exotic swashbuckling adventurer and all that.
5) Elizabeth Skilling was in trouble because she was a tenant in chief who had remarried without Edward's licence - she wasn't being pushed into her marriage to Thomas Waite, not by the King and not by Hampton, who so far as I can see had been in the Fleet the whole time (he had to send his wife out riding round the country to look for the eloping couple).
5) Which brings me to my last point, which is how they might have met. When I was doing the Brampton stuff I ordered a copy of a document from TNA, and it came in last week. It is a court case from early 1481, which seems to show, amongst other things, that Brampton and Fetherstone operated out of Dover. EB could certainly have passed Lullingstone on his way between Dover and London. And Sir William had been Sheriff of Kent, keeper of Canterbury Castle and involved with the customs in Kent. So maybe Isabel and Edward didn't need any outside introduction.

Marie


Anyhow the document is this one. The reference no is C 81/1520 and it belongs to February 1481. The reference to Brampton is right at the end.

"To the king oure soverain lord
In ful lamentable wise shewith unto youre Highnesse your right humble oratour Druot Curtoys that, where he of late in your citie of London as he went in your highstrete stoped downe to the erthe and wold have taken up a pyn from the same, certain bakers of your said citie whos names he knoweth not, thinking that he had taken up money, asked of him the half parte and with manassing woordes there to the grete fere of your said oratour came out upon him the nombre of eight bakers entendyng to have slayn him, and there in his defence slewe oon of the said bakers as they sey, which if it so were was against his wille. In consideracion wherof it may please your moost noble Grace to graunt your gracious letteres patentes undre youre Grete Seele to be made in fourme folowing, and he shall ever prey for youre moost royall estate.
Also your said oratour hath ben in youre service ever sithens he was of lawfull age, upon the see, as Edward Brampton your godson and Fetherstone can wele report."
The rest of the document is in Latin, and is just the wording of the general pardon that Curtoys was asking for.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 18:17:39
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for putting me right there, Marie. If the marriage was in the 1450s, then that would have been too early for Edward's involvement. However, on the subject of Lancastrian widows marrying Yorkist supporters, Margaret Beaufort and Stanley were a bit of an odd couple, and MB never really felt at home with his family. I always assumed she married him to get access to the Yorkist court, but there was some benefit to Edward too. I wonder how much 'encouragement' for the marriage came from him.

Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 15:01:05 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Nico. Yes it was BHOL! H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:55:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary/Marie,
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.

Nico


On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:54 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 21:40:23
Nicholas Brown
That is really interesting, Marie. My guess was that Edward Brandon married Isabel Pecche around late 1471, early 1472. His name was Brampton in the June 1472 document, and I thought he may have taken the name Church Brampton, one of Isabel's Tresham estates. He also left the Domus Conversorum in 1472, so that would fit.
Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:58:27 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi again Hilary,


Re your post suggesting Edward may have pushed Isabel Brampton's way after her Pecche marriage broke up.
It actually brings me to something I was going to post anyway.


About Edward's role, honestly, I'm not sure. It partly depends when they married. The annulment of the Pecche marriage may have been a little earlier than I originally thought, because:-
1) When I looked at Sir William Pecche's IPM, which is the source for his son's year of birth, I found that his age at the time of the IPM equated to a birth year of 1472, not 1473 as I had read. This would mean that the annulment must have come in during 1471 at the very latest. Perhaps they were divorced during the Re-adeption?
2) If Brandon (as he had been) changed his name to Brampton on account of his marriage to Isabel, then this must have occurred before June 1472, when, as Edward Brampton, he was appointed with William Fetherstone to command a fleet to protect the seas.
3) I'm thinking that it must have been the marriage which was the making of Edward Brampton, in the sense that it gave him an income which he could use to establish himself in the shipping business. That being the case, then he had perhaps been married to Isabel for a while when he got that appointment.
4) It was absolutely not the done thing to make a disparaging marriage for lady, and marriage to Edward Brampton at that time would have been socially disparaging to a knight's widow in a big way. Perhaps she'd actually just taken a fancy to him - exotic swashbuckling adventurer and all that.
5) Elizabeth Skilling was in trouble because she was a tenant in chief who had remarried without Edward's licence - she wasn't being pushed into her marriage to Thomas Waite, not by the King and not by Hampton, who so far as I can see had been in the Fleet the whole time (he had to send his wife out riding round the country to look for the eloping couple).
5) Which brings me to my last point, which is how they might have met. When I was doing the Brampton stuff I ordered a copy of a document from TNA, and it came in last week. It is a court case from early 1481, which seems to show, amongst other things, that Brampton and Fetherstone operated out of Dover. EB could certainly have passed Lullingstone on his way between Dover and London. And Sir William had been Sheriff of Kent, keeper of Canterbury Castle and involved with the customs in Kent. So maybe Isabel and Edward didn't need any outside introduction.

Marie


Anyhow the document is this one. The reference no is C 81/1520 and it belongs to February 1481. The reference to Brampton is right at the end.

"To the king oure soverain lord
In ful lamentable wise shewith unto youre Highnesse your right humble oratour Druot Curtoys that, where he of late in your citie of London as he went in your highstrete stoped downe to the erthe and wold have taken up a pyn from the same, certain bakers of your said citie whos names he knoweth not, thinking that he had taken up money, asked of him the half parte and with manassing woordes there to the grete fere of your said oratour came out upon him the nombre of eight bakers entendyng to have slayn him, and there in his defence slewe oon of the said bakers as they sey, which if it so were was against his wille. In consideracion wherof it may please your moost noble Grace to graunt your gracious letteres patentes undre youre Grete Seele to be made in fourme folowing, and he shall ever prey for youre moost royall estate.
Also your said oratour hath ben in youre service ever sithens he was of lawfull age, upon the see, as Edward Brampton your godson and Fetherstone can wele report."
The rest of the document is in Latin, and is just the wording of the general pardon that Curtoys was asking for.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-05 23:32:49
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

Thanks for putting me right there, Marie. If the marriage was in the 1450s, then that would have been too early for Edward's involvement. However, on the subject of Lancastrian widows marrying Yorkist supporters, Margaret Beaufort and Stanley were a bit of an odd couple, and MB never really felt at home with his family. I always assumed she married him to get access to the Yorkist court, but there was some benefit to Edward too. I wonder how much 'encouragement' for the marriage came from him.


Marie responds:

I dunno. What worries me a bit is the idea of Edward spending so much time personally arranging marriages, as if he had nothing else to worry about. Rebel ladies had to have arrangements made for them. King's widows needed royal licence for their remarriage, but even that didn't have to have been handled by the King directly, other than giving the answer his advisors advised. Edward liked his play time, and he had plenty of staff. Pursuing king's widows who had married without licence was, I suspect, mainly a government means of making some extra income from the fine.

The other hurdle is that Margaret's marriage to Stanley, like her marriage to Stafford, was made in unseemly haste, which tends to suggest it was her own doing even if the King very much approved of it. I do wonder whether she was perhaps desperate for another child, because neither time did she wait the socially accepted 12 months before remarrying, and once she got into her mid forties she dumped Stanley like a hot brick.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 10:02:26
Hilary Jones
For some reason Yahoo's swallowed one of my emails but it said that I wasn't claiming you or Marie said that Isabel was the wife of Thomas Tresham it was BHOL and as you say Nico it was very confusing. So I'd managed to clear that one up!
I was more interested that Margaret was yet another displaced widow. I know Edward had to keep them in check so to speak but from what we know about him he did seem particularly drawn to having power over that sort of woman. Even Richard's detractors say he was kind to women (unless they use the Countess of Oxford - but that was at the behest of Edward). On the other hand I suppose it was a cheap way to reward your supporters. BTW I've not heard of anyone claiming to have received a personal gift from Edward in the way that they treasured gifts from Richard.
When you look at some subjects they often throw up other things. When I was researching William Sayer I noticed that he was made Constable of Restormal Castle by Edward in the early 1460s. He was, as I said, a Yorkshireman. Horrox in particular criticises Richard for imposing Northerners on the South West and says this was one reason for the 1483 rebellions. Yet when I looked at Cornwall it was pretty obvious that a lot of the dissent there had been fuelled by Edward, particularly during the De Vere/St Michael's Mount incident. When I get a moment I'll have a look and see how many other southern posts were given by Edward to Northerners and finally try to dispel that myth. H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:17:58 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for putting me right there, Marie. If the marriage was in the 1450s, then that would have been too early for Edward's involvement. However, on the subject of Lancastrian widows marrying Yorkist supporters, Margaret Beaufort and Stanley were a bit of an odd couple, and MB never really felt at home with his family. I always assumed she married him to get access to the Yorkist court, but there was some benefit to Edward too. I wonder how much 'encouragement' for the marriage came from him.

Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 15:01:05 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Nico. Yes it was BHOL! H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:55:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary/Marie,
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.

Nico


On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:54 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 12:16:08
Nicholas Brown
I had always thought MB's marriages seemed unusually hasty. Edmund Tudor and Henry Stafford were barely cold in the grave when she remarried. She didn't really need to marry in haste either because she was independently wealthy and Stafford marriage took her away from Henry whom she barely saw, so I wondered if there was some coercion, perhaps from her family. However, maybe it was her idea and she had her reasons. I don't see her as the passionate, emotional type, but I could be wrong.
Nico

On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 10:03:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

For some reason Yahoo's swallowed one of my emails but it said that I wasn't claiming you or Marie said that Isabel was the wife of Thomas Tresham it was BHOL and as you say Nico it was very confusing. So I'd managed to clear that one up!
I was more interested that Margaret was yet another displaced widow. I know Edward had to keep them in check so to speak but from what we know about him he did seem particularly drawn to having power over that sort of woman. Even Richard's detractors say he was kind to women (unless they use the Countess of Oxford - but that was at the behest of Edward). On the other hand I suppose it was a cheap way to reward your supporters. BTW I've not heard of anyone claiming to have received a personal gift from Edward in the way that they treasured gifts from Richard.
When you look at some subjects they often throw up other things. When I was researching William Sayer I noticed that he was made Constable of Restormal Castle by Edward in the early 1460s. He was, as I said, a Yorkshireman. Horrox in particular criticises Richard for imposing Northerners on the South West and says this was one reason for the 1483 rebellions. Yet when I looked at Cornwall it was pretty obvious that a lot of the dissent there had been fuelled by Edward, particularly during the De Vere/St Michael's Mount incident. When I get a moment I'll have a look and see how many other southern posts were given by Edward to Northerners and finally try to dispel that myth. H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:17:58 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for putting me right there, Marie. If the marriage was in the 1450s, then that would have been too early for Edward's involvement. However, on the subject of Lancastrian widows marrying Yorkist supporters, Margaret Beaufort and Stanley were a bit of an odd couple, and MB never really felt at home with his family. I always assumed she married him to get access to the Yorkist court, but there was some benefit to Edward too. I wonder how much 'encouragement' for the marriage came from him.

Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 15:01:05 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Nico. Yes it was BHOL! H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:55:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary/Marie,
So Margaret Zouche was another Lancastrian widow kept at bay by a marriage to someone loyal to Edward. I had always assumed that remarriages of widows were usually voluntary, but it looks like there could have been more to some of these marriages, at least with Edward. Edward did seem to like widows himself so perhaps some of his supporters got the dubious honour of marrying one of the Kings's cast offs.
I think it was one of the British History Online articles that referred to Isabel as Thomas Tresham's wife and it really confused me. I thought they had got mixed up with his sister, because Isabel Vaux was married to TT's father William, but if she was TT's mother, that would make her too old to marry Pecche and Brampton. But Isabel, TT's sister was married to someone else. The whole thing started to make my head spin. It does make sense though if Isabel Vaux was TT's stepmother, Isabel the half-sister and daughter of Isabel Vaux (not much older than TT's children), Pecche, Isabel's second husband, but later annulled before she married Brampton as her third husband. Maybe the reason for the annulment have been that she or Pecche was pressurized into the marriage, but Edward didn't object as long as she married another of his supporters.

Nico


On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 12:04:54 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie/Nico I've got a bit more re Isabel Peche.
It seems she can't have been the wife of Thomas Tresham because there is another IPM on him in 1472 C145/328 which refers to his wife (Margaret Zouche) as being alive and married to William Sayer. She is the Margaret Sayer who is granted Sywell for life by Edward in 1480 and then it passes to Brampton in 1484 which is when she must have died.
William Sayer, esquire, is described in several deeds as 'king's servant' or 'king's sarjeant' going right back to 1461, so I reckon Margaret is another Lancastrian widow married off by Edward to the safe-keeping of one of his adherents.
Isabel, therefore, can only have been William Tresham's wife, the Isabel Tresham petitioner and the daughter of William Vaux (d 1405) since TT was born about 1420? She again would need 'guarding' as the mother of an attainted traitor? H


Marie replies:
Hi Hilary. Take a deep breath.
I had certainly never claimed that Isabel was Thomas Tresham's wife, and I don't think Nico had either. It is established that she was Sir William Tresham's widow, and therefore either the mother or the stepmother of Sir Thomas Tresham. The Tresham property she held for life was held in dower, by virtue of her being Sir William's widow, and Thomas, as Sir William's heir, held the reversion to it - when he wasn't under attainder, that is.
When Isabel died, the Tresham property she had held in dower was split by Edward IV between Edward Brampton and Margaret, wife of William Sayer, but then Richard granted Margaret's share to Brampton in 1484.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 15:29:02
Valentina Motenegro
Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 15:59:29
Hilary Jones
Marie/Nico
You might be interested in this. Roskell definitely has Isabel Peche/Vaux as TT's mother. He talks about her and his uncle William Vaux. See page 315.
http://www.northamptonshirerecordsociety.org.uk/eNpp/NppNo12_e.pdf

It's an interesting paper anyway H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 21:40:26 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

That is really interesting, Marie. My guess was that Edward Brandon married Isabel Pecche around late 1471, early 1472. His name was Brampton in the June 1472 document, and I thought he may have taken the name Church Brampton, one of Isabel's Tresham estates. He also left the Domus Conversorum in 1472, so that would fit.
Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:58:27 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi again Hilary,


Re your post suggesting Edward may have pushed Isabel Brampton's way after her Pecche marriage broke up.
It actually brings me to something I was going to post anyway.


About Edward's role, honestly, I'm not sure. It partly depends when they married. The annulment of the Pecche marriage may have been a little earlier than I originally thought, because:-
1) When I looked at Sir William Pecche's IPM, which is the source for his son's year of birth, I found that his age at the time of the IPM equated to a birth year of 1472, not 1473 as I had read. This would mean that the annulment must have come in during 1471 at the very latest. Perhaps they were divorced during the Re-adeption?
2) If Brandon (as he had been) changed his name to Brampton on account of his marriage to Isabel, then this must have occurred before June 1472, when, as Edward Brampton, he was appointed with William Fetherstone to command a fleet to protect the seas.
3) I'm thinking that it must have been the marriage which was the making of Edward Brampton, in the sense that it gave him an income which he could use to establish himself in the shipping business. That being the case, then he had perhaps been married to Isabel for a while when he got that appointment.
4) It was absolutely not the done thing to make a disparaging marriage for lady, and marriage to Edward Brampton at that time would have been socially disparaging to a knight's widow in a big way. Perhaps she'd actually just taken a fancy to him - exotic swashbuckling adventurer and all that.
5) Elizabeth Skilling was in trouble because she was a tenant in chief who had remarried without Edward's licence - she wasn't being pushed into her marriage to Thomas Waite, not by the King and not by Hampton, who so far as I can see had been in the Fleet the whole time (he had to send his wife out riding round the country to look for the eloping couple).
5) Which brings me to my last point, which is how they might have met. When I was doing the Brampton stuff I ordered a copy of a document from TNA, and it came in last week. It is a court case from early 1481, which seems to show, amongst other things, that Brampton and Fetherstone operated out of Dover. EB could certainly have passed Lullingstone on his way between Dover and London. And Sir William had been Sheriff of Kent, keeper of Canterbury Castle and involved with the customs in Kent. So maybe Isabel and Edward didn't need any outside introduction.

Marie


Anyhow the document is this one. The reference no is C 81/1520 and it belongs to February 1481. The reference to Brampton is right at the end.

"To the king oure soverain lord
In ful lamentable wise shewith unto youre Highnesse your right humble oratour Druot Curtoys that, where he of late in your citie of London as he went in your highstrete stoped downe to the erthe and wold have taken up a pyn from the same, certain bakers of your said citie whos names he knoweth not, thinking that he had taken up money, asked of him the half parte and with manassing woordes there to the grete fere of your said oratour came out upon him the nombre of eight bakers entendyng to have slayn him, and there in his defence slewe oon of the said bakers as they sey, which if it so were was against his wille. In consideracion wherof it may please your moost noble Grace to graunt your gracious letteres patentes undre youre Grete Seele to be made in fourme folowing, and he shall ever prey for youre moost royall estate.
Also your said oratour hath ben in youre service ever sithens he was of lawfull age, upon the see, as Edward Brampton your godson and Fetherstone can wele report."
The rest of the document is in Latin, and is just the wording of the general pardon that Curtoys was asking for.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 16:53:26
Hilary Jones
And here's William! (and Isabel)
http://www.northamptonshirerecordsociety.org.uk/eNpp/NppNo10_d.pdf H

On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 15:59:26 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie/Nico
You might be interested in this. Roskell definitely has Isabel Peche/Vaux as TT's mother. He talks about her and his uncle William Vaux. See page 315.
http://www.northamptonshirerecordsociety.org.uk/eNpp/NppNo12_e.pdf

It's an interesting paper anyway H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 21:40:26 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

That is really interesting, Marie. My guess was that Edward Brandon married Isabel Pecche around late 1471, early 1472. His name was Brampton in the June 1472 document, and I thought he may have taken the name Church Brampton, one of Isabel's Tresham estates. He also left the Domus Conversorum in 1472, so that would fit.
Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:58:27 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi again Hilary,


Re your post suggesting Edward may have pushed Isabel Brampton's way after her Pecche marriage broke up.
It actually brings me to something I was going to post anyway.


About Edward's role, honestly, I'm not sure. It partly depends when they married. The annulment of the Pecche marriage may have been a little earlier than I originally thought, because:-
1) When I looked at Sir William Pecche's IPM, which is the source for his son's year of birth, I found that his age at the time of the IPM equated to a birth year of 1472, not 1473 as I had read. This would mean that the annulment must have come in during 1471 at the very latest. Perhaps they were divorced during the Re-adeption?
2) If Brandon (as he had been) changed his name to Brampton on account of his marriage to Isabel, then this must have occurred before June 1472, when, as Edward Brampton, he was appointed with William Fetherstone to command a fleet to protect the seas.
3) I'm thinking that it must have been the marriage which was the making of Edward Brampton, in the sense that it gave him an income which he could use to establish himself in the shipping business. That being the case, then he had perhaps been married to Isabel for a while when he got that appointment.
4) It was absolutely not the done thing to make a disparaging marriage for lady, and marriage to Edward Brampton at that time would have been socially disparaging to a knight's widow in a big way. Perhaps she'd actually just taken a fancy to him - exotic swashbuckling adventurer and all that.
5) Elizabeth Skilling was in trouble because she was a tenant in chief who had remarried without Edward's licence - she wasn't being pushed into her marriage to Thomas Waite, not by the King and not by Hampton, who so far as I can see had been in the Fleet the whole time (he had to send his wife out riding round the country to look for the eloping couple).
5) Which brings me to my last point, which is how they might have met. When I was doing the Brampton stuff I ordered a copy of a document from TNA, and it came in last week. It is a court case from early 1481, which seems to show, amongst other things, that Brampton and Fetherstone operated out of Dover. EB could certainly have passed Lullingstone on his way between Dover and London. And Sir William had been Sheriff of Kent, keeper of Canterbury Castle and involved with the customs in Kent. So maybe Isabel and Edward didn't need any outside introduction.

Marie


Anyhow the document is this one. The reference no is C 81/1520 and it belongs to February 1481. The reference to Brampton is right at the end.

"To the king oure soverain lord
In ful lamentable wise shewith unto youre Highnesse your right humble oratour Druot Curtoys that, where he of late in your citie of London as he went in your highstrete stoped downe to the erthe and wold have taken up a pyn from the same, certain bakers of your said citie whos names he knoweth not, thinking that he had taken up money, asked of him the half parte and with manassing woordes there to the grete fere of your said oratour came out upon him the nombre of eight bakers entendyng to have slayn him, and there in his defence slewe oon of the said bakers as they sey, which if it so were was against his wille. In consideracion wherof it may please your moost noble Grace to graunt your gracious letteres patentes undre youre Grete Seele to be made in fourme folowing, and he shall ever prey for youre moost royall estate.
Also your said oratour hath ben in youre service ever sithens he was of lawfull age, upon the see, as Edward Brampton your godson and Fetherstone can wele report."
The rest of the document is in Latin, and is just the wording of the general pardon that Curtoys was asking for.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 22:19:24
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
Roskell could have assumed that Isabel Vaux was TT's mother and William Vaux his uncle because William Tresham had no other recorded wife. If she was his mother, she would have been at least in her 60s when she married Brampton. I'm sure that I saw somewhere that TT had a sister Isabel who was considerably younger than him, but it could be confusion with his own daughter Isabel. I will have to check the charts. Isabel being a stepmother, not that much older than Thomas still seems more likely, especially since she didn't give him much support, and the dispute mentioned by Roskell could be a stepfamily issue.

Nico

On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 19:43:26 GMT+1, Valentina Motenegro Valetinamotenegro@... [] <> wrote:

Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-06 22:45:01
mariewalsh2003
Re Roskell,
Yes historians do seem to claim that Isabel was Thomas's actual mother, but I haven't seen any primary source that spells this out so it could well be nothing more than an assumption. You know me and authorities' - give me the documentary evidence every time!
Sir W Pecche and Isabel don't seem to have tried much to help Thomas Tresham's reconciliation to EIV, and now you have confirmed that Sir Thomas's wife was also a Vaux. I don't know where Margaret sits in the Vaux tree, but if Isabel Vaux was Sir Thomas's mother then you can assume a pretty serious impediment of consanguinity between him and Margaret. Marriages of step kin with two close blood relatives, on the other hand, involved no impediment and were very common.
So the more we find out, the more Isabel appears to me more likely to have been a young stepmother to Sir TT.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-07 02:24:46
Valentina Motenegro
Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/k

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-07 02:24:52
Valentina Motenegro
Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/k

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-07 13:23:33
Hilary Jones
Yep I know. Thomas had a daughter Isabel (b. circa 1455) married to Henry De Vere of Addington (d. 1493) and a sister called Alice. I did wonder whether Edward encouraged Brampton to marry into the Tresham family to keep an eye on the wider De Vere family. Henry is not directly related to Oxford (I can't find that he is, there's a lot of flawed genealogy there too) but they are all from the same area and allegiance. In fact Brampton would be in quite a good position to be a spy with the cover of his merchant business. He could glean quite a lot of the comings and goings from abroad.
I've now got a lot of records and it's really unusual for a second wife not to be recorded, it's much more usual for the first wife, if she died young, to be overlooked or for her surname not to be recorded. I think our only hope of finding out the truth, rather than the probability, is a tomb for Isabel Brampton or Tresham and a wife (with dates). Pecche's tomb is well recorded in the Kent archives together with an analysis of his two known wives - Jane Clifford (probably from heraldic devices) and Anne Proffitt There's no mention of Isabel, but then there wouldn't be. H
On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 22:19:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Roskell could have assumed that Isabel Vaux was TT's mother and William Vaux his uncle because William Tresham had no other recorded wife. If she was his mother, she would have been at least in her 60s when she married Brampton. I'm sure that I saw somewhere that TT had a sister Isabel who was considerably younger than him, but it could be confusion with his own daughter Isabel. I will have to check the charts. Isabel being a stepmother, not that much older than Thomas still seems more likely, especially since she didn't give him much support, and the dispute mentioned by Roskell could be a stepfamily issue.

Nico

On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 19:43:26 GMT+1, Valentina Motenegro Valetinamotenegro@... [] <> wrote:

Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-07 13:58:00
Nicholas Brown

That's right. Alice was TT's sister and Isabel his daughter. I got the names mixed up on my last post. For some reason, I thought Alice was quite a bit younger than TT, and may have been Isabel's daughter, but I can't remember why, so I may be wrong. Perhaps Thomas, his brother Henry and Alice all had the same mother, who was the first wife of William Tresham. WT wasn't that prominent early in his life, so his first wife missed out on being recorded.
As for Isabel Brampton's tomb, since she spent much of her later life in London with Brampton, perhaps she was buried there either in one of the churches that she had a connection to. That is an interesting thought about Edward using Brampton to spy on his enemies through his merchant activities. Brampton was handsomely rewarded for whatever he was doing, and his rise to the top of society was highly ususual, so whatever he was doing must have been extremely valuable to Edward. We know nothing of him before 1468, but imho, he must have been a well connected person of some significance long before then.

Nico
On Friday, 7 September 2018, 13:23:38 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yep I know. Thomas had a daughter Isabel (b. circa 1455) married to Henry De Vere of Addington (d. 1493) and a sister called Alice. I did wonder whether Edward encouraged Brampton to marry into the Tresham family to keep an eye on the wider De Vere family. Henry is not directly related to Oxford (I can't find that he is, there's a lot of flawed genealogy there too) but they are all from the same area and allegiance. In fact Brampton would be in quite a good position to be a spy with the cover of his merchant business. He could glean quite a lot of the comings and goings from abroad.
I've now got a lot of records and it's really unusual for a second wife not to be recorded, it's much more usual for the first wife, if she died young, to be overlooked or for her surname not to be recorded. I think our only hope of finding out the truth, rather than the probability, is a tomb for Isabel Brampton or Tresham and a wife (with dates). Pecche's tomb is well recorded in the Kent archives together with an analysis of his two known wives - Jane Clifford (probably from heraldic devices) and Anne Proffitt There's no mention of Isabel, but then there wouldn't be. H
On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 22:19:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Roskell could have assumed that Isabel Vaux was TT's mother and William Vaux his uncle because William Tresham had no other recorded wife. If she was his mother, she would have been at least in her 60s when she married Brampton. I'm sure that I saw somewhere that TT had a sister Isabel who was considerably younger than him, but it could be confusion with his own daughter Isabel. I will have to check the charts. Isabel being a stepmother, not that much older than Thomas still seems more likely, especially since she didn't give him much support, and the dispute mentioned by Roskell could be a stepfamily issue.

Nico

On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 19:43:26 GMT+1, Valentina Motenegro Valetinamotenegro@... [] <> wrote:

Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro@...OrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-09-07 14:11:40
Hilary Jones
I agree with you, Marie and I like your Lullingstone theory. TT's wife, the one who later married Sayer, was Margaret Zouche,