Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Clarence Support Group

2018-08-23 05:16:47
Nance Crawford
There's no doubt George was a charmer - but anyone who has had experience with alcoholism can attest that the record, as we know it, indicates he evidenced all of the erratic behavior of an alcoholic. It takes a lot of personal fortitude to come terms with the realization that it is possible to hate the symptoms but love the sufferer. Edward finally got sick of it and Richard, who did not have to deal with it from the throne, probably could not let go of the young Georgie he had grown up with, so when he found he was helpless in the face of Edward's rage, beat it out of there. I'd guess Buckingham suddenly felt of great importance, for the first time, and was glas enough to step in, as he was only four when Aunt Cecily came to stay with her children for a fairly short while. It may even be that, in the long run, Richard trusted Buckingham because he was close family, not knowing him well enough to have learned his character. Tey says "Drowned in a butt of Malmsey" was a coloquialism of the time. It is not hard for me to deduced that, left to his own resources in the tower, bored, depressed, with plenty of good wine around, George might, indeed, have died of alcoholic poisoning - something no one at the time would have understood. Not as cheery a picture of two legs sticking out of a barrel, but there you have it. Truth to tell, since the reburial, August 22 has hit me harder every year. I'm grateful to have seen your greetings. N Meet Auntie N!
https://www.patreon.com/NanceCrawford


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-08-23 10:04:35
Hilary Jones
I'd not heard about the coloquialism Nance; it's much more plausible.
We of course don't know whether he did drink that much but it would be hard to blame anyone in that family for seeking solace in alcohol after all they'd been through. I recall the Society commissioned a psychological study of Richard just before he was discovered? I'd love to see it re-done looking at the effects scoliosis might have had on his behaviour when he was extremely tired and possibly in pain. I'm thinking in particular of Stony Stratford (though I do think Rivers et al deserved arrest) and the death of Hastings. H
On Thursday, 23 August 2018, 05:16:51 BST, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

There's no doubt George was a charmer - but anyone who has had experience with alcoholism can attest that the record, as we know it, indicates he evidenced all of the erratic behavior of an alcoholic. It takes a lot of personal fortitude to come terms with the realization that it is possible to hate the symptoms but love the sufferer. Edward finally got sick of it and Richard, who did not have to deal with it from the throne, probably could not let go of the young Georgie he had grown up with, so when he found he was helpless in the face of Edward's rage, beat it out of there. I'd guess Buckingham suddenly felt of great importance, for the first time, and was glas enough to step in, as he was only four when Aunt Cecily came to stay with her children for a fairly short while. It may even be that, in the long run, Richard trusted Buckingham because he was close family, not knowing him well enough to have learned his character. Tey says "Drowned in a butt of Malmsey" was a coloquialism of the time. It is not hard for me to deduced that, left to his own resources in the tower, bored, depressed, with plenty of good wine around, George might, indeed, have died of alcoholic poisoning - something no one at the time would have understood. Not as cheery a picture of two legs sticking out of a barrel, but there you have it. Truth to tell, since the reburial, August 22 has hit me harder every year. I'm grateful to have seen your greetings. N Meet Auntie N!
https://www.patreon.com/NanceCrawford


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-08-23 12:51:07
Paul Trevor bale
Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period so maybe Clarence bought himself the malmsey to help him pass the time, and that it was used to bury him in after his execution, which I still believe would have been beheading by a skilful executioner. Then « tip him in the malmsey butt in the next room » made absolute sense!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 23 août 2018 à 06:16, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> a écrit :

There's no doubt George was a charmer - but anyone who has had experience with alcoholism can attest that the record, as we know it, indicates he evidenced all of the erratic behavior of an alcoholic. It takes a lot of personal fortitude to come terms with the realization that it is possible to hate the symptoms but love the sufferer. Edward finally got sick of it and Richard, who did not have to deal with it from the throne, probably could not let go of the young Georgie he had grown up with, so when he found he was helpless in the face of Edward's rage, beat it out of there. I'd guess Buckingham suddenly felt of great importance, for the first time, and was glas enough to step in, as he was only four when Aunt Cecily came to stay with her children for a fairly short while. It may even be that, in the long run, Richard trusted Buckingham because he was close family, not knowing him well enough to have learned his character. Tey says "Drowned in a butt of Malmsey" was a coloquialism of the time. It is not hard for me to deduced that, left to his own resources in the tower, bored, depressed, with plenty of good wine around, George might, indeed, have died of alcoholic poisoning - something no one at the time would have understood. Not as cheery a picture of two legs sticking out of a barrel, but there you have it. Truth to tell, since the reburial, August 22 has hit me harder every year. I'm grateful to have seen your greetings. N Meet Auntie N!
https://www.patreon.com/NanceCrawford


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-08-23 18:07:22
b.eileen25
Perhaps he was transported to Tewkesbury in this way....

Clarence Support Group

2018-09-02 05:02:08
Nance Crawford
Sorry, Yahoo is still giving me fits, making it impossible to directly respond to ongoing conversations. This means, too, that I have a difficult time trying to find previous threads. I have no problems with astrology, mainly because I don't consider it a predictive tool. I learned from Carroll Righter that an accurate astrological chart is primarily a roadmap, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of character. I would love to see the charts of Edward and George - and Richard, of course, for those reasons. in the time we are discussing, astrology was a very important "science," the primary focus of astronomers - as it had been for thousands of years in many diverse cultures. What we individually believe about it is not the point, here. They believed it, and the interpretations of their "experts" were seriously considered and, more often than not, acted upon, albeit privately and without the sanction of the Church. For example, begging your pardon, you'll find this among the few Author's Notes in KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries, on page 153: In 1477, astronomers Thomas Blake and Thomas Burdett, found guilty of interpreting the horoscopes of Edward IV and his eldest son, Edward, and predicting that both lives would be cut short, were executed for attempting to carry out the same.

Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong. There three men arrested. The third was John Stacey, chaplain of Merton College at Oxford; the Bishop of Norwich interceded for Blake and saved him. George's response to the arrest of Burdett, one of his retainers, sent him to Westminster in a fury. We all know Edward's response. My research indicated Blake to be an astronomer - which does make me wonder how he came to be a Clarence retainer. Wish I had trained to be able to research properly, as do others here, instead of having to come at it, as a dramatist, from available texts in California libraries. N Meet Auntie N!
https://www.patreon.com/NanceCrawford


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-02 09:29:55
mariewalsh2003
Nance wrote:I have no problems with astrology, mainly because I don't consider it a predictive tool. I learned from Carroll Righter that an accurate astrological chart is primarily a roadmap, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of character. I would love to see the charts of Edward and George - and Richard, of course, for those reasons. in the time we are discussing, astrology was a very important "science," the primary focus of astronomers - as it had been for thousands of years in many diverse cultures. What we individually believe about it is not the point, here. They believed it, and the interpretations of their "experts" were seriously considered and, more often than not, acted upon, albeit privately and without the sanction of the Church. For example, begging your pardon, you'll find this among the few Author's Notes in KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries, on page 153: In 1477, astronomers Thomas Blake and Thomas Burdett, found guilty of interpreting the horoscopes of Edward IV and his eldest son, Edward, and predicting that both lives would be cut short, were executed for attempting to carry out the same. Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong.

There three men arrested. The third was John Stacey, chaplain of Merton College at Oxford; the Bishop of Norwich interceded for Blake and saved him. George's response to the arrest of Burdett, one of his retainers, sent him to Westminster in a fury. We all know Edward's response. My research indicated Blake to be an astronomer - which does make me wonder how he came to be a Clarence retainer. Wish I had trained to be able to research properly, as do others here, instead of having to come at it, as a dramatist, from available texts in California libraries.


Marie replies:

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.


I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-02 17:10:00
Doug Stamate

Marie,

If I understand the situation correctly then, what Edward did was to try and judicially murder someone for an act that, seemingly, was required of that person in order for that person to carry out the wishes of the king? When, in actuality, it wasn't what that person had done, but rather that the knowledge acquired had apparently been shared, even if only for professional reasons perhaps?, with someone Edward didn't trust because of that person's association with George?

I know there's little proof of what Stacey's forecast did contain, but Edward's resulting actions don't make it appear as if the horoscope had provided good news. Well, to me anyway. Otherwise, why Edward's violent reaction? OTOH, if Burdet's fate was the result of it being thought he not only provided George with the horoscope's results, but also aided George by plastering Westminster with bills against, perhaps Edward's original thoughts were that all three were supporting George?

Doug

Marie wrote:

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.

I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.


--
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: Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-03 11:17:33
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote:

If I understand the situation correctly then, what Edward did was to try and judicially murder someone for an act that, seemingly, was required of that person in order for that person to carry out the wishes of the king? When, in actuality, it wasn't what that person had done, but rather that the knowledge acquired had apparently been shared, even if only for professional reasons perhaps?, with someone Edward didn't trust because of that person's association with George?

I know there's little proof of what Stacey's forecast did contain, but Edward's resulting actions don't make it appear as if the horoscope had provided good news. Well, to me anyway. Otherwise, why Edward's violent reaction? OTOH, if Burdet's fate was the result of it being thought he not only provided George with the horoscope's results, but also aided George by plastering Westminster with bills against, perhaps Edward's original thoughts were that all three were supporting George?




Marie replies:


Well, this is my very clumpy old translation of the indictment:

"To be inquired for the lord King if Thomas Burdet, late of Arrow in the county of Warwick, esquire, not heeding God and little considering his due allegiance, of malice aforethought, seduced at the devil's instigation, falsely intending to exalt himself in riches, on the twentieth day of April in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth after the Conquest and at various times afterwards, in the vill of Westminster in the county of Middlesex, falsely and treasonably, against his due allegiance, imagined and compassed the death and destruction of the same King, and then and there falsely and treasonously proposed to kill the same king.

And, in order to implement this his false and abominable proposition, he falsely and treasonably laboured and procured one John Stacy late of Oxford in the county of Oxford, gentleman, and Thomas Blake late of Oxford in the county of Oxford, clerk, at the vill of Westminster aforesaid on the twelfth day of November then next following, to calculate and work of and about the nativities of the said lord King and Edward his firstborn son, Prince of Wales, and the dependencies of the same nativities, and of the death of the same lord king and prince, to know when the same King and Edward his son should die. And the said John Stacy and Thomas Blake, knowing the same false and abominable proposal of the foresaid Thomas Burdet, the same John Stacy and Thomas Blake, on the said twelfth day of November at the vill of Westminster aforesaid, falsely and treasonously imagined and compassed the death of the same King and Prince, and then and there proposed to kill the same King and Prince.

And afterwards, on the sixth day of February in the said fourteenth year, at the vill of Westminster aforesaid, the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake falsely and treasonably worked and calculated to implement their false and treasonous proposal by the magic, necromantic and astrological art, to the death and final destruction of the same king and prince.

And afterwards, that is to say, on the twentieth day of May in the fifteenth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, at the foresaid vill of Westminster, the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake falsely and treasonably worked at the foresaid arts, although, by the determination of most holy Church and the teaching of diverse doctors, it was forbidden for any liege of the lord king to intermeddle with kings and princes in the foresaid form without their will and command.

And afterwards the foresaid John Stacy and Thomas Blake and the foresaid Thomas Burdet, at the foresaid vill of Westminster on the 26th day of May in the same fifteenth year, falsely and treasonously showed and said to one Alexander Russheton and others of the King's people that, by their foresaid calculation and arts made by the same John Stacy and Thomas Blake in the aforesaid form, the same king and prince would not live long but would soon decease, to the intent that, by the detection and revelation of this material, the people of the same king would most greatly withdraw their hearts' love from that King, and that, being informed of that detection and revelation, the same king would be taken by sorrow thereat, in shortening of his life.

And so the foresaid Thomas Burdet, moving the death and destruction of the same king (his supreme lord) and the foresaid lord prince by [sowing] war and discord between the same king and his lieges in the foresaid realm, in subversion of his law, on the sixth day of March in the seventeenth year of the reign of the reign of the foresaid king, at Holborn in the county of Middlesex, falsely and treasonably imagined and compassed and proposed to kill the same king and prince; and, for the final implementation of this their false and abominable proposal and to stir up treasons, the foresaid Thomas Burdet made and fabricated diverse bills and writings, rhymes and ballads of seditious murmurings , at Holborn and the vill of Westminster aforesaid, and falsely and treasonably spread, scattered and disseminated them on the said sixth day of March and on the fourth and fifth days of May in the said seventeenth year, with the intention that the people of the lord king wshuld withdraw their hearts' love from the same king and relinquish it, and would rise up against the same king and raise war against him, to the final destruction of that king and the lord prince, and against their allegiance, and also against the crown and dignity of the same king, etc."

(The source document is TNA KB 8/1)


So, you see, Stacey's being charged with casting the King's horoscope without permission sounds fine until you realise he was Edward's own astrologer. The entire wording, bar the dates, is cribbed from Bolingbroke's indictment, even to the stuff about the plan being for the people to withdraw their love from the King and rise up against him, and the King being expected to die of melancholy. The incident in which they told their findings to Alexander Russheton and many others has an exact parallel in Bolingbroke's indictment, where Bolingbroke and his sidekick reveal all to Sir John Solers and many others. In each case the named hearer was someone not charged, so had presumably turned King's Evidence.

Alexander Russheton was Burdet's long-suffering right-hand man - he lived in Studley, a few miles up the road from Arrow and Alcester. He may have had enough of suffering for Burdet's unpopularity, as over the Easter holidays the two of them had been set upon and beaten up in Alcester by a mob intent on murdering Burdet and, although Burdet had got away, Russheton had been badly injured and left for dead lying in the streets of Alcester (did Burdet just run off and leave him??). If Burdet was in the habit of visiting John Stacey, Russheton must surely have known about it all along as he was always at Burdet's side. Maybe he was present when the details were talked about to a new audience, but I can't believe it was news to him. Incidentally, the date given for this incident, 26 May 1475, was the date of the general muster of Edward's army in Kent.

I don't know what to make of the exact dates in the indictment - perhaps it's simply a case of Stacey having kept an appointment book.

The difference between this indictment and Bolingbroke's is the wealth of detail in Bolingbroke's about his methods, particularly with regard to the necromancy, and also the means he used to get hold of the details of King Henry's nativity so he could do the calculations as commanded by his mistress the Duchess of Gloucester. Stacey, of course, would have been given those details by the King, which is why, I presume, the indictment draws a veil over how he obtained them. You may also notice that the 1477 indictment is framed as though there was no powerful client and the three just randomly got together to bring down the King, but the implication must surely be that Edward believed Clarence to be behind it. What I imagine Edward suspected (everyone was getting paranoid by now) is that Clarence had commissioned Burdet to get the information about the nativities of Edward and his son from Stacey, and, if possible, to get Stacey and Blake to reveal what they had learned about the royal lifespans through their astrological workings, so that Clarence could then decide if the signs were good for him to make another attempt on the throne (in fact, I imagine Clarence would have had his own horoscope done as well).

If Stacey and Blake really had given Edward that sort of bad news about himself and his son, he must have been feeling very insecure, so he may well have felt his bending of the law was justified. But you can equally well see how Burdet was able to protest his innocence up to the end, and why Clarence was so furious at his execution.



Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-03 13:31:59
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
I've done a bit on Burdet in the past. He was no insignificant servant as you probably know. The family hailed from Leicestershire originally but got a foothold in Warwickshire through marriage to the last of the de Camvilles. He comes from a long line of high sheriffs/knights of the shire and, along with the Montforts and the Rouses, was one of the top players in Warwickshire. He was also one of those who Edward played about with to split the Warwickshire powerbase and to undermine both Warwick and later Clarence in their attempts to control the place. Interestingly, for a long time Lord Sudeley, EB's father-in-law was the prime influencer there until he became old and was superseded by Hastings - another Edward ploy. (All this is Carpenter but well annotated)
I didn't know about Lady Beauchamp (which one was she?) but certainly the Burdet family have a long history of belonging to the Beauchamp affinity. Also they had strong familial connections at this time with the Staffords of Grafton - Burdet's great aunt had married Sir Humphrey Stafford (d. 1419). Lots of Yorkist leanings there too.
So not some foolish youth looking into crystal balls with Clarence. I agree with all you about astronomy, in fact it's hard to understand the medieval psyche without it.
The other thing that's difficult to interpret though is ambition. You can use it as an attribute to praise someone or to decry them, depending on your bias towards the person. So if Clarence was ambitious because, probably like Richard, he thought he could do a better job than Edward then that's to be praised. If on the other hand he wasn't capable of delivering what he wanted (which looks likely), or he just wanted the title and the power, then it's indeed a flaw. We still need to know more about the Ankarette thing but you give some interesting new leads. And particularly with young Edward too. As you may know JAH in his latest book has him sick and probably dead byJuly 1483, which would tie in with what we were saying about his handwriting. Thanks again! H

On Sunday, 2 September 2018, 09:30:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nance wrote:I have no problems with astrology, mainly because I don't consider it a predictive tool. I learned from Carroll Righter that an accurate astrological chart is primarily a roadmap, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of character. I would love to see the charts of Edward and George - and Richard, of course, for those reasons. in the time we are discussing, astrology was a very important "science," the primary focus of astronomers - as it had been for thousands of years in many diverse cultures. What we individually believe about it is not the point, here. They believed it, and the interpretations of their "experts" were seriously considered and, more often than not, acted upon, albeit privately and without the sanction of the Church. For example, begging your pardon, you'll find this among the few Author's Notes in KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries, on page 153: In 1477, astronomers Thomas Blake and Thomas Burdett, found guilty of interpreting the horoscopes of Edward IV and his eldest son, Edward, and predicting that both lives would be cut short, were executed for attempting to carry out the same. Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong.

There three men arrested. The third was John Stacey, chaplain of Merton College at Oxford; the Bishop of Norwich interceded for Blake and saved him. George's response to the arrest of Burdett, one of his retainers, sent him to Westminster in a fury. We all know Edward's response. My research indicated Blake to be an astronomer - which does make me wonder how he came to be a Clarence retainer. Wish I had trained to be able to research properly, as do others here, instead of having to come at it, as a dramatist, from available texts in California libraries.


Marie replies:

Indeed you are right, Nance - astronomy/astrology was very important in medieval times. For physicians it was an invaluable tool for working out the correct individualised treatment, and there are several examples in the records of would-be rebels first checking with an astrologer to see if the prognostications were good enough.

I researched this case once, as background for a book I was going to write about Edward of Warwick. It's murky, and a lot of assumptions that have been made - such as that Stacy and Blake were retained by Clarence - turned out to be wrong. The first person to find out their true positions was in fact Michael Hicks - his biography of Clarence is actually extremely well researched.

Burdet was a retainer of Clarence; that is for sure; he owned the manor of Arrow just outside Alcester on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire boundary, as well as some other properties .

Stacey was a fellow of Merton, but not a chaplain - he never became a priest. He was a highly respected astrologer, and in 1473 began to be employed directly by Edward IV. He soon left Oxford altogether, settled in London and married a lady named Marion. Edward even took him along on the French campaign in 1475, presumably for his professional guidance.

Thomas Blake also worked for Oxford University. He was a chaplain at Merton, where he collaborated with Stacey. The college records indicate that he was an extremely gifted astrologer, even better than Stacey. He didn't move to court completely, like Stacy, but kept his position at Merton and seemingly made the odd trip to London to maintain contact with his professional partner.

But anyway, this information shows that Edward charging these men with having cast his horoscope without permission (which he did) was ludicrous. What else was he employing Stacey for? It is not even that credible that Stacey did not have permission to look for signs of the king's possible death in his chart because the whole point of taking him on campaign would surely have been to warn him of such dangers. Similarly, I expect the King would have wanted to know about the future of his son and heir. Medieval astrology was a very different animal from modern practice. There were many techniques used that have since been lost, and a very different attitude towards prediction. Predictive astrology was widely practised, and no medieval astrologer (so I have been told) would predict someone's future without first looking for indications of their lifespan. What I believe angered Edward was not the fact that Stacey and Blake had made these predictions, but the fact that they had - so he believed - divulged them to third parties, particularly to Burdet. Possibly there simply wasn't a law to cover that.

The case is, in fact, a legal nightmare. The accusation against Burdet of collaborating with Stacey and Blake is mixed up with completely different charges relating to the posting of seditious bills against the King around the Westminster area. These bills are not said to have contained astrological information, and given the timing were most probably rants by Clarence against Edward's policy of not supporting Margaret and Mary of Burgundy against Louis' intention to seize back the lands that the dukes of Burgundy held of the French crown.

The wording of the charges against Stacey and Blake was such a bad fit for their case that I decided to look at the indictment against Roger Bolingbroke to see if it had been cribbed, as medieval indictments tend to be rather formulaic. And that is exactly what I found. Edward's people had simply copied the charges against Bolingbroke but dropped all the supporting detail because of course it wouldn't have fitted. So, for instance, S & B are accused of necromancy but no example of necromancy is actually given. And, like Bolingbroke, they are accused of spreading the claim of the king's imminent demise to kill him by melancholy.

The other dubious aspect of the trial is that Edward rushed it through by appointing an oyer and terminer commission to try the men immediately at Westminster. That, however, meant that all the crimes had to have taken place in the county where they were being tried (in this case, Middlesex). So all the appointments between Stacy, Blake and Burdet are said to have taken place at Westminster, and so was the incident (remarkably similar to one in Bolingbroke's indictment) in which Stacey divulged the king's imminent demise to third parties. The problem is that, when I looked for evidence of whereabouts for some of these dates, Westminster was not always coming up as the answer. This is, actually, exactly the same ruse that Clarence had used in order to try Ankarette Twynyho in Warwick, i.e. he claimed she had delivered the fatal drink to Isabel at Warwick, but on the date he gave Isabel was still in Tewkesbury. So Edward may have, rather nastily, have been deliberately getting his own back on Clarence by condemning his retainer through the same legal fiction (lie) that Clarence had used to condemn Ankarette.

Clarence was outraged about Burdet's execution, and turned up at the King's council with a copy of Burdet's final written declaration of innocence, which he seems to have had on him when he died (perhaps to read it out from the gallows). I think it's very likely that Burdet was not guilty as charged; he may perhaps have consulted Stacey or Blake, but for his own purposes. Crowland thought Stacey had been accused of trying to kill Lord Beauchamp by melting a wax image at Lady Beauchamp's behest because she had a lover. There is nothing at all like this in the real charges, but it is perhaps possible that Lady Beauchamp's rumoured lover was Thomas Burdet because the Beauchamps owned and lived on the next-door manor of Alcester; if so, Burdet could have been seeking astrological advice about his love life. And probably Stacey was not as discreet about the King's business as he should have been. Perhaps, during those fraught early months of 1477, Clarence encouraged Burdet to try to elicit information from Stacey and Blake about the King's lifespan whilst he was chatting over his own issues with them. We'll almost certainly never know, largely because the indictments against the three are such a shoddy piece of work.


I think we in the 21st century are apt to miss some of the motivations of our medieval ancestors, a large number of whom wouldn't undertake any major activity without seeking astrological advice, if they could afford it. What is also overlooked is that Angelo Cato, who commissioned Mancini to write his account of Richard's path to the throne, was, as well as being a famous physician, also an internationally renowned astrologer who specialised in using astrology for political prediction and guidance. I do sometimes wonder if he was mainly trying to find out, through Mancini, whether Edward V really had died young, as predicted by Stacey and Blake. Apparently prediction of early death in a child meant the total lack of a life-force principle in the chart, and death (it was believed) would occur some time between birth and the 13th birthday. Young Edward was getting close. Such an interest might explain why Mancini tried to tackle the question of whether Edward V was dead even though he had no useful knowledge. It does come across to me as if he was trying his best to provide information for which he'd been specifically asked.



Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-03 20:09:18
mariewalsh2003

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period


Marie says:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-03 20:23:31
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I've done a bit on Burdet in the past. He was no insignificant servant as you probably know. The family hailed from Leicestershire originally but got a foothold in Warwickshire through marriage to the last of the de Camvilles. He comes from a long line of high sheriffs/knights of the shire and, along with the Montforts and the Rouses, was one of the top players in Warwickshire. He was also one of those who Edward played about with to split the Warwickshire powerbase and to undermine both Warwick and later Clarence in their attempts to control the place. Interestingly, for a long time Lord Sudeley, EB's father-in-law was the prime influencer there until he became old and was superseded by Hastings - another Edward ploy. (All this is Carpenter but well annotated)I didn't know about Lady Beauchamp (which one was she?) but certainly the Burdet family have a long history of belonging to the Beauchamp affinity. Also they had strong familial connections at this time with the Staffords of Grafton - Burdet's great aunt had married Sir Humphrey Stafford (d. 1419). Lots of Yorkist leanings there too. So not some foolish youth looking into crystal balls with Clarence. I agree with all you about astronomy, in fact it's hard to understand the medieval psyche without it.


Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

Yes, as you can guess I have also done a LOT of work on Thomas Burdet, including trawling through file after file of King's Bench records before there were any online! At one time I hoped to write a separate study on him, and on the astrology case that brought him down, but it all got too complicated. Indeed, he was no 'foolish youth' - probably in his early fifties, so far as I can estimate.

Things got complicated with Burdet because there are just so many violent incidents in the records involving him or his servants, and so many surnames appearing in them. As well as local gentry, there are also many ordinary local family names which keep popping up in these 'incidents' over the years, and I never got to the bottom of it. Thomas seemed to have a really good capacity for falling out with people. At one time he had been good friends with his immediate gentleman neighbour to the west, Sir John Rous of Ragley, but then they fell out over the boundaries between their respective hunting parks and it got very nasty indeed. What the Alcester men had against Thomas which caused them to set on him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477 I don't know. Was it connected with a quarrel with the lord of the manor of Alcester, Sir Richard Beauchamp (Lady Beauchamp's husband), or did they have a quarrel of their own with Burdet? Lady Beauchamp, incidentally, was Elizabeth Stafford, sister of the current Humphrey Stafford of Grafton (the one executed in 1486).


And then there is his marital history. Thomas had got his first marriage, to Agnes Waldieff, annulled - despite the fact that they had a son, Richard - so that he could marry the widow Margaret Hill. The church court protected Richard's legitimacy, but this had no affect on his bastardy in common law, which Thomas should have realised. I imagine Richard's inheritance was protected by enfeoffments to the use for the next decade and a half or whatever, until Thomas fell out with his son and decided to refeoff his estates to the use of Margaret Hill's issue after his death. So that started a really enormous quarrel with his only adult son, which was raging at the time of his arrest, and which some 16th century writers believed to have been the thing that finally robbed him of the support of all the other gentry in the area, making Edward's execution of him politically possible. I think it's Stow who has the touching story of Thomas's reconciliation with his son Richard as he lay strapped to the hurdle on his way to Tyburn. That story may be apocryphal, as I found a contemporary document which revealed that Richard and Thomas had actually had some sort of partial reconciliation whilst Thomas was in the Tower. Richard's furious, and eventually successful, attempts, to reclaim Arrow (which was protected from confiscation to the Crown by enfeoffment) are yet another story again, which I've never properly finished researching.


I think that Yorkist/ Lancastrian politics are probably a red herring here. It was, specifically, Burdet's unlikeable personality and his longstanding service to Clarence that doomed him.


Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-04 05:52:02
nance@nancecrawford.com
Thank you, Marie! I'm really grateful for the clarification. I'm planning on revising (updating to include the events of 2012, etc.) The Commentaries and this will be of enormous help. Hope it's okay to use it. I do plan on adding this chat group to the resources at the back of the book - more especially since the sadly short-sighted members of the Grand Poobah Council have declared us persona non grata.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-04 06:24:03
NEIL TRUMP
To all
We are in Germany at the moment and when I get back I will start the movement to another platform for greater reliability.
Neil

Sent from my iPad
On 2 Sep 2018, at 06:01, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, Yahoo is still giving me fits, making it impossible to directly respond to ongoing conversations. This means, too, that I have a difficult time trying to find previous threads. I have no problems with astrology, mainly because I don't consider it a predictive tool. I learned from Carroll Righter that an accurate astrological chart is primarily a roadmap, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of character. I would love to see the charts of Edward and George - and Richard, of course, for those reasons. in the time we are discussing, astrology was a very important "science," the primary focus of astronomers - as it had been for thousands of years in many diverse cultures. What we individually believe about it is not the point, here. They believed it, and the interpretations of their "experts" were seriously considered and, more often than not, acted upon, albeit privately and without the sanction of the Church. For example, begging your pardon, you'll find this among the few Author's Notes in KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries, on page 153: In 1477, astronomers Thomas Blake and Thomas Burdett, found guilty of interpreting the horoscopes of Edward IV and his eldest son, Edward, and predicting that both lives would be cut short, were executed for attempting to carry out the same.

Whether or not they attempted anything was beside the point. Predicting the death of the monarch was a capital crime.

However, as it turned out, it appears they weren't entirely wrong. There three men arrested. The third was John Stacey, chaplain of Merton College at Oxford; the Bishop of Norwich interceded for Blake and saved him. George's response to the arrest of Burdett, one of his retainers, sent him to Westminster in a fury. We all know Edward's response. My research indicated Blake to be an astronomer - which does make me wonder how he came to be a Clarence retainer. Wish I had trained to be able to research properly, as do others here, instead of having to come at it, as a dramatist, from available texts in California libraries. N Meet Auntie N!
https://www.patreon.com/NanceCrawford


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-04 20:53:30
mariewalsh2003

Nance, about the Stacy/ Burdet case:

Thank you, Marie! I'm really grateful for the clarification. I'm planning on revising (updating to include the events of 2012, etc.) The Commentaries and this will be of enormous help. Hope it's okay to use it.


Marie:

By all means. Glad the material will get used.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-05 05:01:09
Doug Stamate

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period

Marie replied:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Doug here:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...


--
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] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-05 08:33:55
Paul Trevor bale
Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin.With George's reputation I'm certain there would have been nothing left of the liquid, brandy, or in George's case Malmsey! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 sept. 2018 à 06:00, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Paul wrote:

Let's not forget that a tun barrel was used a lot as a coffin in that period

Marie replied:

Actually they were used as bath tubs - that's the point that's been made.

I'm now getting images of George being buried pickled in a barrel. . . .

Doug here:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...


--
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] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-05 12:17:52
mariewalsh2003

Re George and the barrel, Doug wrote:

All I ever knew was that tuns were used to preserve the bodies of important personages who'd died while at sea until they could be re-interred on land.

I also presume not all of the brandy was left in the casks for embalming purposes...


Paul added:

Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin.

With George's reputation I'm certain there would have been nothing left of the liquid, brandy, or in George's case Malmsey!


Marie replies:

1. Apparently it was Colin Richmond who suggested that the butt of malmsey story may have come about through George being drowned in his bath, as manuscript illustrations show barrels as bathtubs.

2. It is true that, in the later ages of ocean-going voyages and spirits, pickling in a brandy barrel could be used as a method of preserving the body of a particularly important individual (i.e. too important to tip over the side) until they could be got back to shore for coffining and burying, but this doesn't help shed light on George's butt of malmsey.

3. I've never heard of barrels being used as coffins, Paul. Can you provide us with a source? It sounds extremely undignified for a lord.

4. George had no reputation as a boozer during his lifetime. There is simply no hint of it in the records. As far as I can make out, this is a fiction built up out of the butt of malmsey story and George's so-called erratic behaviour (which actually was extremely consistent, even if antisocial). It's become a novelists' trope.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-06 15:28:48
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 @ gmail.comOrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-06 15:29:10
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 @ gmail.comOrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-06 16:32:15
Doug Stamate
Paul, I hadn't heard about tuns being used as bath-tubs, but it makes sense. As pointed out by Hilary and, I believe, Marie, George apparently didn't have a reputation for over-drinking while alive, so the idea of his being drowned in a butt of Malmesey doesn't fit what we know of him. Right now I'm leaning towards the idea that, because his stay in the Tower was somewhat lengthy, George was provided with some amenities, which included his favorite wine Malmesey. For all I know, the wine may have come from George's own stock. The other possibility is that, rather than have a public execution, George was given enough of his favorite wine until he passed out and then he was drowned by someone holding his head down in a hogshead/butt/tun that had been converted into a bath-tub  thus drowning in a butt of Malmesey. I think Marie mentioned that as possibility, my apologies to Marie if I'm wrong. Anyway, I looked up the definitions for the terms in question and got the following: A hogshead held either 63 or 64 gallons of liquid, a butt was equal to two hogsheads (126 gallons) and a tun was equal to four hogsheads (256 gallons). Cutting any one of the above in half would give you a container big enough to take a bath in; the bigger the container, the more luxurious the bath-tub, of course. Doug Paul wrote: Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin. With George's reputation I'm certain there would have been nothing left of the liquid, brandy, or in George's case Malmsey!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-06 16:32:57
Hilary Jones
Neil!!!!
On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 16:31:52 BST, 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 @ gmail.comOrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-06 16:37:02
Hilary Jones
I think Paul once said he went on a wine buying trip to Gascony with Buckingham? But that would make everyone who buys wine a drunkard. Just a thought but could he have mentioned the PreContract to Bucks over a glass :) H
On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 16:32:32 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, I hadn't heard about tuns being used as bath-tubs, but it makes sense.. As pointed out by Hilary and, I believe, Marie, George apparently didn't have a reputation for over-drinking while alive, so the idea of his being drowned in a butt of Malmesey doesn't fit what we know of him. Right now I'm leaning towards the idea that, because his stay in the Tower was somewhat lengthy, George was provided with some amenities, which included his favorite wine Malmesey. For all I know, the wine may have come from George's own stock. The other possibility is that, rather than have a public execution, George was given enough of his favorite wine until he passed out and then he was drowned by someone holding his head down in a hogshead/butt/tun that had been converted into a bath-tub  thus drowning in a butt of Malmesey. I think Marie mentioned that as possibility, my apologies to Marie if I'm wrong. Anyway, I looked up the definitions for the terms in question and got the following: A hogshead held either 63 or 64 gallons of liquid, a butt was equal to two hogsheads (126 gallons) and a tun was equal to four hogsheads (256 gallons). Cutting any one of the above in half would give you a container big enough to take a bath in; the bigger the container, the more luxurious the bath-tub, of course. Doug Paul wrote: Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin. With George's reputation I'm certain there would have been nothing left of the liquid, brandy, or in George's case Malmsey!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-06 18:40:27
Doug Stamate
Marie wrote:

1. Apparently it was Colin Richmond who suggested that the butt of malmsey story may have come about through George being drowned in his bath, as manuscript illustrations show barrels as bathtubs.

Doug here:

If the bath-tub was half of a butt that had contained Malmesey wine it tould fit the story that developed. FWIW, quite often when I see the phrase drowned in a butt of Malmesey, the word wine is omitted. If the original was what I typed, then possibly wine was added simply to describe the butt's original contents? Or is that too involved?

Marie continued:

2. It is true that, in the later ages of ocean-going voyages and spirits, pickling in a brandy barrel could be used as a method of preserving the body of a particularly important individual (i.e. too important to tip over the side) until they could be got back to shore for coffining and burying, but this doesn't help shed light on George's butt of malmsey.

3. I've never heard of barrels being used as coffins, Paul. Can you provide us with a source? It sounds extremely undignified for a lord.

Doug here:

Using casks/butts at sea to preserve bodies for later re-burial is the only coffin-like use I've ever encountered.

Marie concluded:

4. George had no reputation as a boozer during his lifetime. There is simply no hint of it in the records. As far as I can make out, this is a fiction built up out of the butt of malmsey story and George's so-called erratic behaviour (which actually was extremely consistent, even if antisocial). It's become a novelists' trope.

Doug here:

The only thing I can come up with is that George's death in some manner involved a wine butt and the myth about George over-drinking grew from there. Perhaps something along the line of Cecily's supposed declaration that Edward wasn't the son of Richard, Duke of York? A phrase gets taken out of context and begins living a life of its' own.

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] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-06 18:50:20
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I got one as well. Looks as if someone has gotten access to the membership list at Yahoo? Doug Hilary wrote: Neil!!!! On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 16:31:52 BST, 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 @ gmail.com Or Pretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1 Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

--
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] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-06 19:45:00
Hilary Jones
Doug I think we've been hacked by the Russians:). Another one. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:50 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I got one as well. Looks as if someone has gotten access to the membership list at Yahoo? Doug Hilary wrote: Neil!!!! On Thursday, 6 September 2018, 16:31:52 BST, 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 @ gmail.com Or Pretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1 Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-06 22:10:43
Paul Trevor Bale
I honestly don't recall where the reference came from, may well have been the same source that told me of the wine buying trip George took aged 14 to the West Country with his cousin of Buckingham! Lost most of my references to my Buckingham article during a move, still angry with myself over that.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 6 sept. 2018 à 17:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Paul, I hadn't heard about tuns being used as bath-tubs, but it makes sense.. As pointed out by Hilary and, I believe, Marie, George apparently didn't have a reputation for over-drinking while alive, so the idea of his being drowned in a butt of Malmesey doesn't fit what we know of him. Right now I'm leaning towards the idea that, because his stay in the Tower was somewhat lengthy, George was provided with some amenities, which included his favorite wine Malmesey. For all I know, the wine may have come from George's own stock. The other possibility is that, rather than have a public execution, George was given enough of his favorite wine until he passed out and then he was drowned by someone holding his head down in a hogshead/butt/tun that had been converted into a bath-tub  thus drowning in a butt of Malmesey. I think Marie mentioned that as possibility, my apologies to Marie if I'm wrong. Anyway, I looked up the definitions for the terms in question and got the following: A hogshead held either 63 or 64 gallons of liquid, a butt was equal to two hogsheads (126 gallons) and a tun was equal to four hogsheads (256 gallons). Cutting any one of the above in half would give you a container big enough to take a bath in; the bigger the container, the more luxurious the bath-tub, of course. Doug Paul wrote: Yes Doug, I've never heard of the tun being used as bath tubs, but not that they were used as you describe, as well as mine of being for a coffin. With George's reputation I'm certain there would have been nothing left of the liquid, brandy, or in George's case Malmsey!
--
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] Clarence Support Grou

2018-09-07 02:24:30
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: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-07 02:24:39
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: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-07 02:25:17
quersia12
Why is there a message about some financial stuff?

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-07 02:25:23
quersia12
May I ask what might sound like a stupid question, but I have always wondered about it? Why did Edward order Clarence to be executed in such a ridiculous manner in the first place? Did Clarence choose to be drown in wine or is it an ironic death? I can understand the family embarrassment of execution of a brother for treason and a private execution, but surely it would have been more dignified to behead him within the Tower instead? Just curious.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-07 07:14:38
mariewalsh2003
The manner of Clarence's execution was never announced, so the butt of malmsey story was a rumour. The earliest reference to it is in 1483, in Mancini, but he gives an Italian sweet white wine rather than malmsey.
It might be true, it might not. The portrait generally said to be of Margaret of Clarence shows her wearing a barrel as a jewel on her necklace, but when I read an article on the painting I was dismayed to learn that the identification of the lady as Clarence's daughter has been made largely on the strength of the barrel, so it's a totally circular argument.
The problem there is that anyone with -ton at the end of their surname might choose to have a barrel as their device.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Claren

2018-09-07 07:22:53
mariewalsh2003
Hi Paul,
I've never heard of the wine-buying trip either. I know Edward gave gifts of wine to George and Richard one Christmas while they were still living at court and Edward was spending Xmas in the North. At 14 Clarence and Buckingham would still have been kept as members of the royal household.
Of course, noble households like Clarence's (once he was old enough to have one) bought in wine in very large quantities, and had to restock every year without fail because wine doesn't keep well Iin barrels. But that tells us nothing about the lord's personal consumption.
Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-07 13:56:05
Hilary Jones
Strangely enough I came to Burdet through his Somerset connections (Margaret Rodney/Hill) but he's also covered pretty well by Carpenter who has clearly spent years going through the archives of all the gentry in Warwickshire at this point - it's an admirable tome. She has Rous as the initial protagonist by invading Burdet's close, though like you she agrees that Burdet could act rashly in retaliation. There is the lovely bit about him trying to get his wife to wake up with a priest so he could annul his marriage, but she insisted on getting up when he did. Carpenter of course is no Ricardian so she doesn't devote much time to Burdet's fall.
All this is used to illustrate the unusual power of the gentry in Warwickshire who were running rings round higher magnates since the Beauchamp Earls had died out. And Edward's reluctance to attaint them!
Although he was clearly not the calmest person Burdet doesn't seem to have been the worst either. That honour fell to the Mountforts and the Verneys. Richard Neville was too distant to keep his hand in; every time he went away one or the other of them invoked a quarrel and appealed directly to Edward who played cat and mouse by sometimes supporting one and then the other. And sometimes he'd get Hastings to sort it out, which was totally out of order. You can see this too in early 1480s in Coventry where he even belittles his own son's attempts to sort out issues (well shall we say those of Rivers) and just wades in and takes over. Perhaps in truth Edward never really felt secure; he had to step in and sort things out? Hardly the halcyon second reign that some historians talk of.
BTW I admire you and anyone who spent hours with the original documents, particularly in the days when Record Offices were only accessible during weekday office hours. Digitised documents are marvellous but I'm really surprised sometimes how much handwriting has been mis-transcribed. As for genealogy sites... ouch! H
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 18:56:06 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I've done a bit on Burdet in the past. He was no insignificant servant as you probably know. The family hailed from Leicestershire originally but got a foothold in Warwickshire through marriage to the last of the de Camvilles. He comes from a long line of high sheriffs/knights of the shire and, along with the Montforts and the Rouses, was one of the top players in Warwickshire. He was also one of those who Edward played about with to split the Warwickshire powerbase and to undermine both Warwick and later Clarence in their attempts to control the place. Interestingly, for a long time Lord Sudeley, EB's father-in-law was the prime influencer there until he became old and was superseded by Hastings - another Edward ploy. (All this is Carpenter but well annotated)I didn't know about Lady Beauchamp (which one was she?) but certainly the Burdet family have a long history of belonging to the Beauchamp affinity. Also they had strong familial connections at this time with the Staffords of Grafton - Burdet's great aunt had married Sir Humphrey Stafford (d. 1419). Lots of Yorkist leanings there too. So not some foolish youth looking into crystal balls with Clarence. I agree with all you about astronomy, in fact it's hard to understand the medieval psyche without it.


Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

Yes, as you can guess I have also done a LOT of work on Thomas Burdet, including trawling through file after file of King's Bench records before there were any online! At one time I hoped to write a separate study on him, and on the astrology case that brought him down, but it all got too complicated. Indeed, he was no 'foolish youth' - probably in his early fifties, so far as I can estimate.

Things got complicated with Burdet because there are just so many violent incidents in the records involving him or his servants, and so many surnames appearing in them. As well as local gentry, there are also many ordinary local family names which keep popping up in these 'incidents' over the years, and I never got to the bottom of it. Thomas seemed to have a really good capacity for falling out with people. At one time he had been good friends with his immediate gentleman neighbour to the west, Sir John Rous of Ragley, but then they fell out over the boundaries between their respective hunting parks and it got very nasty indeed. What the Alcester men had against Thomas which caused them to set on him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477 I don't know. Was it connected with a quarrel with the lord of the manor of Alcester, Sir Richard Beauchamp (Lady Beauchamp's husband), or did they have a quarrel of their own with Burdet? Lady Beauchamp, incidentally, was Elizabeth Stafford, sister of the current Humphrey Stafford of Grafton (the one executed in 1486).


And then there is his marital history. Thomas had got his first marriage, to Agnes Waldieff, annulled - despite the fact that they had a son, Richard - so that he could marry the widow Margaret Hill. The church court protected Richard's legitimacy, but this had no affect on his bastardy in common law, which Thomas should have realised. I imagine Richard's inheritance was protected by enfeoffments to the use for the next decade and a half or whatever, until Thomas fell out with his son and decided to refeoff his estates to the use of Margaret Hill's issue after his death. So that started a really enormous quarrel with his only adult son, which was raging at the time of his arrest, and which some 16th century writers believed to have been the thing that finally robbed him of the support of all the other gentry in the area, making Edward's execution of him politically possible. I think it's Stow who has the touching story of Thomas's reconciliation with his son Richard as he lay strapped to the hurdle on his way to Tyburn. That story may be apocryphal, as I found a contemporary document which revealed that Richard and Thomas had actually had some sort of partial reconciliation whilst Thomas was in the Tower. Richard's furious, and eventually successful, attempts, to reclaim Arrow (which was protected from confiscation to the Crown by enfeoffment) are yet another story again, which I've never properly finished researching.


I think that Yorkist/ Lancastrian politics are probably a red herring here. It was, specifically, Burdet's unlikeable personality and his longstanding service to Clarence that doomed him.


Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-09 20:56:13
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Strangely enough I came to Burdet through his Somerset connections (Margaret Rodney/Hill) but he's also covered pretty well by Carpenter who has clearly spent years going through the archives of all the gentry in Warwickshire at this point - it's an admirable tome. She has Rous as the initial protagonist by invading Burdet's close, though like you she agrees that Burdet could act rashly in retaliation.
Marie replies:I agree about Carpenter's Locality and Polity - it is an amazing feat, and I have a copy in the spare wardrobe (it's too fat for my bookshelves). suspect the problem is that, as usual, we know about the case initially because Burdet sued John Rous over it, so we get his version of how it all started. What I discovered in the King's Bench records is that he was always accusing people of breaking into his closes and depasturing them, and these incidents were always escalating into violence (one of his servants was killed in the quarrel with Rous). I've come to the conclusion that such cases generally have a boundary dispute at their root - more often than not quarrels with tenants or neighbours over new enclosures. Unfortunately, all we have surviving of 15thC court cases are the formulaic indictments, which never suggest motive.Carpenter's book is amazing, but it's about grand social themes rather than biography - details of individual careers are brought up always to illustrate a point. So she doesn't really get to the nitty-gritty with Thomas Burdet, and misses an awful lot of the petty local quarrels he was involved in.
Hilary wrote:There is the lovely bit about him trying to get his wife to wake up with a priest so he could annul his marriage, but she insisted on getting up when he did. Carpenter of course is no Ricardian so she doesn't devote much time to Burdet's fall.
Marie:Are you sure? Could you possibly give me a page ref, Hilary? I've been through Carpenter's references to Thomas Burdet, of course, and I didn't find this. I'm also surprised because:-a) you couldn't get an annulment on grounds of adultery (possibly a divorce at bed and board from an incorrigible adulterer, if you were very lucky, but that wouldn't allow you to remarry); andb) Dugdale, who had seen the records of Burdet's annulment, claims that it was obtained on grounds of consanquinity, Burdet claiming that his grandmother/ greatgandmother (forgotten which) was also a Waldeve.

Hilary wrote:Although he was clearly not the calmest person Burdet doesn't seem to have been the worst either. That honour fell to the Mountforts and the Verneys. Richard Neville was too distant to keep his hand in; every time he went away one or the other of them invoked a quarrel and appealed directly to Edward who played cat and mouse by sometimes supporting one and then the other. And sometimes he'd get Hastings to sort it out, which was totally out of order. You can see this too in early 1480s in Coventry where he even belittles his own son's attempts to sort out issues (well shall we say those of Rivers) and just wades in and takes over. Perhaps in truth Edward never really felt secure; he had to step in and sort things out? Hardly the halcyon second reign that some historians talk of.
Marie:I think it's rather that Burdet doesn't feature so much in Carpenter's book because he was much smaller fry than the Mountforts and Verneys, and possibly the majority of his lands were in Worcestershire anyway so not covered by Carpenter's study. Thomas didn't even get on with a lot of his own family, or his immediate neighbours. When I said the tradesmen of Alcester attacked him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477, I meant it - that is exactly what the indictment claims. Now, what on earth could have driven them to such desperate measures? (Incidentally, that is another incident not picked up by Carpenter - it was actually Michael Hicks who first found it - he mentions it in his Clarence book. I don't think Christine Carpenter used the King's Bench records.)
Hilary wrote:
BTW I admire you and anyone who spent hours with the original documents, particularly in the days when Record Offices were only accessible during weekday office hours. Digitised documents are marvellous but I'm really surprised sometimes how much handwriting has been mis-transcribed. As for genealogy sites... ouch! H
Marie:Thanks, Hilary! Actually, what I did was to take a digital camera, snap away at anything interesting I found and work through the images when I got home. I'm actually not surprised that in the days before digital cameras historians mistranscribed things. Having to copy down everything on site, without the ability to blow things up on screen or keep going back to the document to check for accuracy, that must have been a real pain.


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-11 12:01:50
Hilary Jones
I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue!
The bit about the priest is on pages 535/6 and in her footnotes she does appear to use the King's Bench records - though I don't know whether the book as been updated since the original.
Yes I agree about the grand themes. Talking of which, I've made it my business to start going through the later writ diem clausit extremums to make sure I haven't got someone at Bosworth who was already dead. What you do notice is that naturally a lot of Edward's original supporters are now passing on - after all he's been on the throne for over twenty years by 1483. Horrox's work is also impressive but it gets hooked up on the grand theme that Richard was unpopular, disliked, made poor judgments, you name it. In fact what Richard was dealing with was the next generation, who apart from a blip in 1470/71, had had years on concentrating on things other than wars. They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary, were they? H
On Sunday, 9 September 2018, 20:56:16 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Strangely enough I came to Burdet through his Somerset connections (Margaret Rodney/Hill) but he's also covered pretty well by Carpenter who has clearly spent years going through the archives of all the gentry in Warwickshire at this point - it's an admirable tome. She has Rous as the initial protagonist by invading Burdet's close, though like you she agrees that Burdet could act rashly in retaliation.
Marie replies:I agree about Carpenter's Locality and Polity - it is an amazing feat, and I have a copy in the spare wardrobe (it's too fat for my bookshelves). suspect the problem is that, as usual, we know about the case initially because Burdet sued John Rous over it, so we get his version of how it all started. What I discovered in the King's Bench records is that he was always accusing people of breaking into his closes and depasturing them, and these incidents were always escalating into violence (one of his servants was killed in the quarrel with Rous). I've come to the conclusion that such cases generally have a boundary dispute at their root - more often than not quarrels with tenants or neighbours over new enclosures. Unfortunately, all we have surviving of 15thC court cases are the formulaic indictments, which never suggest motive.Carpenter's book is amazing, but it's about grand social themes rather than biography - details of individual careers are brought up always to illustrate a point. So she doesn't really get to the nitty-gritty with Thomas Burdet, and misses an awful lot of the petty local quarrels he was involved in.
Hilary wrote:There is the lovely bit about him trying to get his wife to wake up with a priest so he could annul his marriage, but she insisted on getting up when he did. Carpenter of course is no Ricardian so she doesn't devote much time to Burdet's fall.
Marie:Are you sure? Could you possibly give me a page ref, Hilary? I've been through Carpenter's references to Thomas Burdet, of course, and I didn't find this. I'm also surprised because:-a) you couldn't get an annulment on grounds of adultery (possibly a divorce at bed and board from an incorrigible adulterer, if you were very lucky, but that wouldn't allow you to remarry); andb) Dugdale, who had seen the records of Burdet's annulment, claims that it was obtained on grounds of consanquinity, Burdet claiming that his grandmother/ greatgandmother (forgotten which) was also a Waldeve.

Hilary wrote:Although he was clearly not the calmest person Burdet doesn't seem to have been the worst either. That honour fell to the Mountforts and the Verneys. Richard Neville was too distant to keep his hand in; every time he went away one or the other of them invoked a quarrel and appealed directly to Edward who played cat and mouse by sometimes supporting one and then the other. And sometimes he'd get Hastings to sort it out, which was totally out of order. You can see this too in early 1480s in Coventry where he even belittles his own son's attempts to sort out issues (well shall we say those of Rivers) and just wades in and takes over. Perhaps in truth Edward never really felt secure; he had to step in and sort things out? Hardly the halcyon second reign that some historians talk of.
Marie:I think it's rather that Burdet doesn't feature so much in Carpenter's book because he was much smaller fry than the Mountforts and Verneys, and possibly the majority of his lands were in Worcestershire anyway so not covered by Carpenter's study. Thomas didn't even get on with a lot of his own family, or his immediate neighbours. When I said the tradesmen of Alcester attacked him with a view to decapitation at Easter 1477, I meant it - that is exactly what the indictment claims. Now, what on earth could have driven them to such desperate measures? (Incidentally, that is another incident not picked up by Carpenter - it was actually Michael Hicks who first found it - he mentions it in his Clarence book. I don't think Christine Carpenter used the King's Bench records.)
Hilary wrote:
BTW I admire you and anyone who spent hours with the original documents, particularly in the days when Record Offices were only accessible during weekday office hours. Digitised documents are marvellous but I'm really surprised sometimes how much handwriting has been mis-transcribed. As for genealogy sites... ouch! H
Marie:Thanks, Hilary! Actually, what I did was to take a digital camera, snap away at anything interesting I found and work through the images when I got home. I'm actually not surprised that in the days before digital cameras historians mistranscribed things. Having to copy down everything on site, without the ability to blow things up on screen or keep going back to the document to check for accuracy, that must have been a real pain.


Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-11 17:07:06
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue!

The bit about the priest is on pages 535/6 and in her footnotes she does appear to use the King's Bench records - though I don't know whether the book as been updated since the original.Yes I agree about the grand themes. Talking of which, I've made it my business to start going through the later writ diem clausit extremums to make sure I haven't got someone at Bosworth who was already dead. What you do notice is that naturally a lot of Edward's original supporters are now passing on - after all he's been on the throne for over twenty years by 1483. Horrox's work is also impressive but it gets hooked up on the grand theme that Richard was unpopular, disliked, made poor judgments, you name it. In fact what Richard was dealing with was the next generation, who apart from a blip in 1470/71, had had years on concentrating on things other than wars. They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary, were they? H
Marie replies:Gee whizz! I can't imagine how I missed this (it even includes claims that Thomas B. tried to murder his baby son Richard, who had to be smuggled out to Alcester Abbey, where the Abbot stood godfather to him). Thanks a lot for this reference, Hilary.Sadly, I think it is no more than a story. Carpenter says it was evidence before a "later" Chancery commission. It appears to be a lot later. She gives three references for her section on the divorce:-1) Dugdale, which I have looked at, and is not the source of this story. He explains the grounds of consanguinity that were used, and gives, as Carpenter says, a muddled date of 1464 to 1466 (i.e. a regnal year and AD that don't match). In addition, which Carpenter missed, Burdet had obtained royal licence to marry Margaret Hill back in 1456.2) TNA KB 27/877, Rot. 19. Yes, you are right - Carpenter has used the King's Bench records, but she clearly didn't find - or use - everything. That's not really surprising as there is so much of them, and the civil cases, which are the front half (or more often two-thirds), tended to be overlooked because they're not so juicy, but that is where Thomas Burdet turned up for me almost every term, suing somebody over something in a way that was really unusual. This particular file belongs to the Hilary term of 1481. It's a crown case, and it's one I've worked through and translated in the past. It doesn't have anything in particular to do with the divorce - it's about the armed conflict between Richard Burdet and his stepmother and stepbrother over ownership of Arrow.3) Which leaves Derbyshire RO D156M/84. Now, this is something I haven't looked at. Derbyshire RO D156 is an enormous series of papers relating to the Burdets, of which D156M is a subseries. but the problem is that there doesn't seem, judging by the Derbyshire Record Office catalogue, to be a D156M/84 - not now, anyway. All the D156Ms are subdivided as D156M/A, B, etc, and the numbers in each of these doesn't go anywhere near 84. So what I did was to search on the word Chancery. Unfortunately, there are a few references and it's not entirely clear which one is the right one, but nothing earlier than 1559, and some into the 1600s.So what I think you have is a family legend that had grown in the telling by the time this commission looked into it, and the family's idea of what had happened had been further confused by subsequent changes in divorce law and baptismal practices following the Reformation (i.e. post Reformation babies were at the age of several weeks, or even months, preferably tacked on to a big church service for a very public special event such as St. George's Day, whereas in the 15th century the christening would take place within a day or two of the birth).
But this passage I think also gives us one reason why Carpenter didn't make more of the Burdets in her book. She says in her footnote that there was so much information on the family in the Derbyshire Record Office that 'I hope some time to publish it.' I hope she does. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find a reference to this Chancery case in TNA catalogue.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-13 09:44:41
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, If he was doing all this wouldn't somebody start saying he was seriously mad? Or as you say, it could be a legend built up after his death to blacken his name - where have we heard that before?
It would be lovely to know what those Derbyshire records show. I'm still convinced there's more to Ankarette Twynyho than we know to date. I see Shropshire have started putting all their records online. That might help. H
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018, 19:51:51 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue!

The bit about the priest is on pages 535/6 and in her footnotes she does appear to use the King's Bench records - though I don't know whether the book as been updated since the original.Yes I agree about the grand themes. Talking of which, I've made it my business to start going through the later writ diem clausit extremums to make sure I haven't got someone at Bosworth who was already dead. What you do notice is that naturally a lot of Edward's original supporters are now passing on - after all he's been on the throne for over twenty years by 1483. Horrox's work is also impressive but it gets hooked up on the grand theme that Richard was unpopular, disliked, made poor judgments, you name it. In fact what Richard was dealing with was the next generation, who apart from a blip in 1470/71, had had years on concentrating on things other than wars. They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary, were they? H
Marie replies:Gee whizz! I can't imagine how I missed this (it even includes claims that Thomas B. tried to murder his baby son Richard, who had to be smuggled out to Alcester Abbey, where the Abbot stood godfather to him). Thanks a lot for this reference, Hilary.Sadly, I think it is no more than a story. Carpenter says it was evidence before a "later" Chancery commission. It appears to be a lot later. She gives three references for her section on the divorce:-1) Dugdale, which I have looked at, and is not the source of this story. He explains the grounds of consanguinity that were used, and gives, as Carpenter says, a muddled date of 1464 to 1466 (i.e. a regnal year and AD that don't match). In addition, which Carpenter missed, Burdet had obtained royal licence to marry Margaret Hill back in 1456.2) TNA KB 27/877, Rot. 19. Yes, you are right - Carpenter has used the King's Bench records, but she clearly didn't find - or use - everything. That's not really surprising as there is so much of them, and the civil cases, which are the front half (or more often two-thirds), tended to be overlooked because they're not so juicy, but that is where Thomas Burdet turned up for me almost every term, suing somebody over something in a way that was really unusual. This particular file belongs to the Hilary term of 1481. It's a crown case, and it's one I've worked through and translated in the past. It doesn't have anything in particular to do with the divorce - it's about the armed conflict between Richard Burdet and his stepmother and stepbrother over ownership of Arrow.3) Which leaves Derbyshire RO D156M/84. Now, this is something I haven't looked at. Derbyshire RO D156 is an enormous series of papers relating to the Burdets, of which D156M is a subseries. but the problem is that there doesn't seem, judging by the Derbyshire Record Office catalogue, to be a D156M/84 - not now, anyway. All the D156Ms are subdivided as D156M/A, B, etc, and the numbers in each of these doesn't go anywhere near 84. So what I did was to search on the word Chancery. Unfortunately, there are a few references and it's not entirely clear which one is the right one, but nothing earlier than 1559, and some into the 1600s.So what I think you have is a family legend that had grown in the telling by the time this commission looked into it, and the family's idea of what had happened had been further confused by subsequent changes in divorce law and baptismal practices following the Reformation (i.e. post Reformation babies were at the age of several weeks, or even months, preferably tacked on to a big church service for a very public special event such as St. George's Day, whereas in the 15th century the christening would take place within a day or two of the birth).
But this passage I think also gives us one reason why Carpenter didn't make more of the Burdets in her book. She says in her footnote that there was so much information on the family in the Derbyshire Record Office that 'I hope some time to publish it.' I hope she does. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find a reference to this Chancery case in TNA catalogue.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-13 13:13:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary, That last sentence of yours: They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary sums up, I think, a major misconception many have about this period. After Warwick died they simply weren't any over-mighty subjects left. By that I mean men who, by the number of armed retainers they alone could bring into battle and thus either under-pin or shake the throne. A magnate might use the forces available to him tactically, as the Stanleys did at Bosworth, but no individual magnate, not even one or two such magnates working together, held enough power in their hands to, on their own, cause major problems for the king. As demonstrated by the Yorkists failures in battle after Bosworth, what was now needed was a number of local magnates bringing out their men; and a fairly large number at that. After Warwick's death, it seems to me that it required more than a few magnates being dissatisfied with a king to cause major problems for that king. The days when a king only had to worry about keeping the Despensers, Beauchamps and Nevilles, for example, close to him as props to his power had passed. I think Horrox may have realized that, thus her attempt to show how many members of the gentry were upset, or worse, by Richard scattering newcomers throughout southern and western England after October 1483. I have no idea how one would go about it, or if it's perhaps already been done, but it would be nice to have at least a general listing of who owned what and where. Or if such a survey is even feasible, for that matter? Ideally, it would consist of a map (interactive perhaps?) with an accompanying listing of, for example, property owners in one county with any properties owned elsewhere by those persons popping up when that person's name was typed in. I suppose it's too much to hope that such an enterprise would qualify as a Good Cause so as to be funded by the National Lottery? I know, Dreams, idle dreams... I also want to add that sll this has come about from my reading your and Marie's posts about how Edward Brampton ended up acquiring various properties from the Treshams and Pecches and the difficulties you two have encountered and that I stand in awe of the work that you and Marie, and anyone else, do! Doug Hilary wrote: I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue! The bit about the priest is on pages 535/6 and in her footnotes she does appear to use the King's Bench records - though I don't know whether the book as been updated since the original. Yes I agree about the grand themes. Talking of which, I've made it my business to start going through the later writ diem clausit extremums to make sure I haven't got someone at Bosworth who was already dead. What you do notice is that naturally a lot of Edward's original supporters are now passing on - after all he's been on the throne for over twenty years by 1483. Horrox's work is also impressive but it gets hooked up on the grand theme that Richard was unpopular, disliked, made poor judgments, you name it. In fact what Richard was dealing with was the next generation, who apart from a blip in 1470/71, had had years on concentrating on things other than wars. They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary, were they?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-14 00:12:00
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie, If he was doing all this wouldn't somebody start saying he was seriously mad? Or as you say, it could be a legend built up after his death to blacken his name - where have we heard that before?
Marie:It's certainly made up later as, in addition to being mad, it doesn't fit the actual grounds of annulment, the marriage law that pertained at the time, or pre-Reformation baptismal practices. I think, however, that the motive would have been to persuade the commission that Thomas' marriage to Richard's mother had been valid but he just wanted out of it, because it seems to be that the stepbrother's descendants were once again challenging the right of Richard's descendants to the property, and that is why the Chancery commission was looking into the genealogy. I suspect that over time the story just grew in the telling. To begin with, Richard seems to have assumed that the protection of his legitimacy by the Church court that granted the annulment meant he could still inherit, but the matter was discussed by the Justices and he was put straight (I found this amongst the cases in the legal Year Books).
Hilary wrote:
It would be lovely to know what those Derbyshire records show. I'm still convinced there's more to Ankarette Twynyho than we know to date. I see Shropshire have started putting all their records online. That might help.
Marie:There's more to everybody's story than we know - that is what makes it so interesting, and so difficult.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-14 10:18:04
Hilary Jones
Doug it's tedious, but perhaps not as difficult as you think if you do it in bite sized bits. I started with a list of those presumed to have fought at Bosworth and am in the process of still checking this out in various ways. One is to look at the writs/IPMs of the months before and after the battle, to discount some who may have died before and to add possibilities, like those who died maybe of wounds in the following months. Now the latter isn't easy because you bump into the sweating sickness (if it's a London Mayor you can guess it was that but there are others) and some writs take well over a year to be issued - Richard Boughton's for example took over a year, so I reckon it means looking at two years post Bosworth. You can then match them with HT's pardon and attainder lists and get closer. If you have an IPM you have the lands.
Secondly I looked at the High Sheriffs at the time of Bosworth to see who fought and who didn't turn up. Now this again isn't as easy as you think because of course they changed when HT took over but the counties often don't specify dates so you have to guess by allegiance. The idea is to match it all of course to the 1483 rebellions.
One positive thing is that families are now stepping forward to proudly say their ancestor fought for Richard. I'm sure before his discovery it was something they wanted to hide. So you can double check things out by visiting their websites, which they often have.
Give me a week or so and I'll give you an update
BTW haven't forgotten your other reply re young Edward. Will be back to you on that.. H
On Thursday, 13 September 2018, 16:33:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, That last sentence of yours: They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary sums up, I think, a major misconception many have about this period. After Warwick died they simply weren't any over-mighty subjects left. By that I mean men who, by the number of armed retainers they alone could bring into battle and thus either under-pin or shake the throne. A magnate might use the forces available to him tactically, as the Stanleys did at Bosworth, but no individual magnate, not even one or two such magnates working together, held enough power in their hands to, on their own, cause major problems for the king. As demonstrated by the Yorkists failures in battle after Bosworth, what was now needed was a number of local magnates bringing out their men; and a fairly large number at that. After Warwick's death, it seems to me that it required more than a few magnates being dissatisfied with a king to cause major problems for that king. The days when a king only had to worry about keeping the Despensers, Beauchamps and Nevilles, for example, close to him as props to his power had passed. I think Horrox may have realized that, thus her attempt to show how many members of the gentry were upset, or worse, by Richard scattering newcomers throughout southern and western England after October 1483. I have no idea how one would go about it, or if it's perhaps already been done, but it would be nice to have at least a general listing of who owned what and where. Or if such a survey is even feasible, for that matter? Ideally, it would consist of a map (interactive perhaps?) with an accompanying listing of, for example, property owners in one county with any properties owned elsewhere by those persons popping up when that person's name was typed in. I suppose it's too much to hope that such an enterprise would qualify as a Good Cause so as to be funded by the National Lottery? I know, Dreams, idle dreams... I also want to add that sll this has come about from my reading your and Marie's posts about how Edward Brampton ended up acquiring various properties from the Treshams and Pecches and the difficulties you two have encountered and that I stand in awe of the work that you and Marie, and anyone else, do! Doug Hilary wrote: I always take Carpenter to the hairdressers when it's one of those three hour stunts - it gets some very strange looks from those reading Vogue! The bit about the priest is on pages 535/6 and in her footnotes she does appear to use the King's Bench records - though I don't know whether the book as been updated since the original. Yes I agree about the grand themes. Talking of which, I've made it my business to start going through the later writ diem clausit extremums to make sure I haven't got someone at Bosworth who was already dead. What you do notice is that naturally a lot of Edward's original supporters are now passing on - after all he's been on the throne for over twenty years by 1483. Horrox's work is also impressive but it gets hooked up on the grand theme that Richard was unpopular, disliked, made poor judgments, you name it. In fact what Richard was dealing with was the next generation, who apart from a blip in 1470/71, had had years on concentrating on things other than wars. They were hardly going to rush to arms just because their father did unless it was absolutely necessary, were they?
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-16 14:30:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Even in bite-sized bits, it still looks quite formidable to me! Perhaps once computers get even more sophisticated, it'll be possible to simply scan all documents into a a searchable database. Of course, one would still have to sort through all the hits! When you go hunting for Sir William Pecche you don't have the advantage of a particular location to help narrow the search, do you? So you, and Marie and Nico, are dealing with all the Sir William Pecches there may be? Pity Post Codes weren't around... Doug Hilary wrote: Doug it's tedious, but perhaps not as difficult as you think if you do it in bite sized bits. I started with a list of those presumed to have fought at Bosworth and am in the process of still checking this out in various ways. One is to look at the writs/IPMs of the months before and after the battle, to discount some who may have died before and to add possibilities, like those who died maybe of wounds in the following months.. Now the latter isn't easy because you bump into the sweating sickness (if it's a London Mayor you can guess it was that but there are others) and some writs take well over a year to be issued - Richard Boughton's for example took over a year, so I reckon it means looking at two years post Bosworth.. You can then match them with HT's pardon and attainder lists and get closer. If you have an IPM you have the lands. Secondly I looked at the High Sheriffs at the time of Bosworth to see who fought and who didn't turn up. Now this again isn't as easy as you think because of course they changed when HT took over but the counties often don't specify dates so you have to guess by allegiance. The idea is to match it all of course to the 1483 rebellions. One positive thing is that families are now stepping forward to proudly say their ancestor fought for Richard. I'm sure before his discovery it was something they wanted to hide. So you can double check things out by visiting their websites, which they often have. Give me a week or so and I'll give you an update BTW haven't forgotten your other reply re young Edward. Will be back to you on that..H
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-16 16:08:13
mariewalsh2003
Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-16 17:49:10
mariewalsh2003
Sorry, should have been John Walshes but it keeps automistaking.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-17 12:15:55
Nicholas Brown
Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy.
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-17 14:56:52
mariewalsh2003
If someone is repeatedly referred to in contemporary records as Sir So and So, knight, then you can assume they had been knighted. But an isolated reference to them like that could be a mistake. Also very occasionally Sir was used as a courtesy title for laymen as well as priests, but in those cases the word knight' (miles in Latin) won't appear at the end.

Hope this makes sense now I've gone through getting rid of the puzzling references to mysterious ladies named Sian and Alison which my phone had snook into this message instead of what I'd actually typed.

Marie

Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-09-17 16:59:57
quersia12
Thanks Marie, that answers my question as well. I read in a source I can't recall but will look into later that a shipment of malsmary wine (excuse my spelling) had come from their sister in the Netherlands and this was some kind of ironic use of it as Clarence was fond of it. Of course the sources are probably as unreliable as the story itself, but being drowned in a bath sounds plausible.

Bodies were sometimes placed in large butts or barrels and pickled with preservatives while travelling because otherwise they decayed and smelt. It was more normal to bury someone close to where they died unless you could afford to prepare the body, use lead as a lining and preserve it for a journey home. Malsmary is a spiced wine, so perhaps it was a good preservative? Oh well, another mystery. Thanks for the response.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-18 10:27:53
Hilary Jones
Trying to answer you, Doug and Marie in one go .....
Knights are usually described as such in their writs and IPM, but of course these can also be wrong. Same with Esquires and sometimes 'Gentlemen' . By the 16th century there were these three definite layers but the 15 century is a bit more hazy. In our case I've so far failed to find a writ or IPM for William Vaux 1405 and I'm still trying to find one for his uncle, the justice Sir William Thyrning, but he is well documented. I suppose as far as knights go you could look through the CPR - there were knighthoods given at coronations and on other occasions, but I recall Richard gave Percy powers to create knighthoods on the Scottish campaign so my guess is it's messy, unless Marie can come up with something else.
I spent yesterday looking at William Vaux's other daughter, Eleanor. She married Thomas Giffard of Fringford and Twyford Bucks, the son and heir of Sir Roger Giffard. He died in 1469 and their son was born in 1431. The Giffards are well documented with generations of IPMs and Proofs of Age. We know Thomas was born on 29 Dec 1408 and Eleanor, like her sister Margaret, is described as the daughter of William Vaux, Esquire and Eleanor Drakelow. I have to say, if the Visitation and Bridges are right about Margaret and Eleanor, it would be strange (but not impossible of course) for it to be wrong about Isabel. We also know that William Vaux was a lawyer, which chimes in with his mother being the sister of a Justice. Do we know of any connections that William Pecche had with Northants? The other two are very local marriages.
Northants is a strange county as far as genealogy goes. (BTW Marie I only ever use genealogy sites to start with a 'skeleton', which is discarded in about 30 per cent of cases, same with visitations). That's because I would say that by the fifteenth century at least half the gentry are 'immigrants'. Vaux, Andrew, Clarell all originate in Yorkshire, Spencer and Raleigh in Devon, there is also significant overspill from Hunts and Cambs, like the Mulshos and 'our' William from Bottisham. It's almost certainly because of the wool industry - it is sheep country but it also lies on the cloth route to Witney. Even MB had a flutter on wool in Northants. It may also have something to do with the lands of the monastic orders who had links countrywide - and bred sheep.
Digressing a bit, but going back to the conversation with Doug on who turned up at Bosworth one point made (I think by Carpenter) is that knighthoods were no longer very popular. As you know they'd originally been created by the Normans to make money; to be a knight you had to pay a fee. Now by the 15 century the fee had got bigger and you also had to prove you had the trappings of a knight, like armour and a horse, all very expensive. And fighting was no longer the only career. There were much more comfortable ways to make money. So some people actually dodged being knighted because of the expense and obligation. Hence fewer available to fight and certainly at short notice. H
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-18 11:43:26
Nicholas Brown

What is going on with Yahoo? I sent a reply to Marie's last post last night, and it just repeated my original message. Anyway, as for some of the 'knights' I had suspected it may have been some sort of local courtesy title rather than anything official, so thanks for clearing that up. Of course, with the more prominent people, repeated references in formal documents would suffice to confirm that they were actually knighted. I wish there was a more comprehensive directory listing everyone with some info on each one.

Nico
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:52 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-18 13:47:05
Hilary Jones
Nico I don't know what's going on. I sent you a reply early this morning and it's still not come through. Messages seem to take ours, or are for some reason randomly withheld - I know it's not you, Neil! H
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 13:43:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


What is going on with Yahoo? I sent a reply to Marie's last post last night, and it just repeated my original message. Anyway, as for some of the 'knights' I had suspected it may have been some sort of local courtesy title rather than anything official, so thanks for clearing that up. Of course, with the more prominent people, repeated references in formal documents would suffice to confirm that they were actually knighted. I wish there was a more comprehensive directory listing everyone with some info on each one.

Nico
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:52 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-18 15:00:23
Hilary Jones
And the spellings alter :) H

On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 13:47:14 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico I don't know what's going on. I sent you a reply early this morning and it's still not come through. Messages seem to take ours, or are for some reason randomly withheld - I know it's not you, Neil! H
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 13:43:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


What is going on with Yahoo? I sent a reply to Marie's last post last night, and it just repeated my original message. Anyway, as for some of the 'knights' I had suspected it may have been some sort of local courtesy title rather than anything official, so thanks for clearing that up. Of course, with the more prominent people, repeated references in formal documents would suffice to confirm that they were actually knighted. I wish there was a more comprehensive directory listing everyone with some info on each one.

Nico
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 05:04:52 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging...

On the subject of knights, how can you check for certain if someone was actually knighted? Metcalfe's Book of Knights and Shaw's Knights of England don't list everybody. As we found with Brampton, his son was listed, but not him. Also, visitations seem to make mistakes too, and I have seen a few people recorded as Sir ...., but can't find any other reference to them being knighted or doing anything noteworthy..
Nico

On Sunday, 16 September 2018, 20:39:35 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I know the question over ID was for Hilary but given that you gave Sir William Pecche as an example I thought I ought to recap that of course our very first task was to ensure that all the refs to Sir Wm Pecche in the records of 1460s to 1480s were to the same man - that there were neither multiple simultaneous Sir Wm Pecches not two consecutive ones involved . This I did, and explained the evidence in earlier posts. This why we seem to be left with annulment as the only possible explanation for Isabel & William's remarriages c. 1471

Marie

With more common surnames, of course, confusion over identity is a real problem, although knights of the same name were rare and would usually identify themselves by their seat or relationship to their namesake. It's the guys with no titles who are really challenging. Which of very many John Welshes in the records was attainted after Bosworth, for instance? Hilary maybe has found clues, but the Act of Attainder doesn't specify.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-18 16:28:58
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary. Knights are described as such in every single official document in which they are mentioned. There was nothing fluid about being a knight - you had either been knighted or you hadn't. There could be the odd mistake in a document, granted, but I covered that in my post.

Isabel isn't listed as a daughter of William Vaux d. 1405 in the Visitation - that is my point, which I have made clearly twice before. She appears only in the Tresham section, if I remember rightly, as Sir William Tresham's wife and the daughter of a Sir William Vaux.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-19 11:05:50
Hilary Jones
Marie, I've just stumbled upon a writ for William Vaux, Esquire, of Northants & several other counties for 03 May 1452. I never found one for 1405 or anywhere there abouts. So perhaps he died much later than thought and Isabel is indeed his daughter, but considerably younger than her siblings? This would tie in with there not seemingly being a proof of age for his son, the later Sir William?
I think the Visitation is muddled, as they often are. The first writ for 'Sir' William in Nov 1460 calls him William Vaux, Esquire, unless it's a coincidental recall for his father's. In fact do we know when William 1460 was knighted because right up until 1459 he is referred to as Esquire or just William Vaux in the Fine Rolls. I haven't looked at the CPR. If he was knighted just before his death I can see the confusion. It's often assumed that High Sheriffs are knights when in fact many were Esquires.
I must have missed the first bit of the discussion about the Visitation in my stuff that got trashed, as I did the info on Isabel's divorce, so sorry. But, as we say, for Isabel to be Thomas T's mother she must have been born about the same time as her sisters. H
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 16:47:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary. Knights are described as such in every single official document in which they are mentioned. There was nothing fluid about being a knight - you had either been knighted or you hadn't. There could be the odd mistake in a document, granted, but I covered that in my post.

Isabel isn't listed as a daughter of William Vaux d. 1405 in the Visitation - that is my point, which I have made clearly twice before. She appears only in the Tresham section, if I remember rightly, as Sir William Tresham's wife and the daughter of a Sir William Vaux.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-19 20:16:56
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:
Marie, I've just stumbled upon a writ for William Vaux, Esquire, of Northants & several other counties for 03 May 1452. I never found one for 1405 or anywhere there abouts. So perhaps he died much later than thought and Isabel is indeed his daughter, but considerably younger than her siblings? This would tie in with there not seemingly being a proof of age for his son, the later Sir William?
I think the Visitation is muddled, as they often are. The first writ for 'Sir' William in Nov 1460 calls him William Vaux, Esquire, unless it's a coincidental recall for his father's. In fact do we know when William 1460 was knighted because right up until 1459 he is referred to as Esquire or just William Vaux in the Fine Rolls. I haven't looked at the CPR. If he was knighted just before his death I can see the confusion. It's often assumed that High Sheriffs are knights when in fact many were Esquires.
Marie:This was not the William Vaux who is said to have died in 1405. There were three William Vaux in succession, as I'm sure you know. Almost all the genealogies on the web have the last two as knights, and I must admit I have taken this at face value although I know from the references I have found that William II (died December 1460, yes?) was still an esquire as late as 1459. I sort of assumed he was probably knighted in late 1459 or 1460 after one of the battles, but I've had another look for references to him as a knight with no success, and I'm now starting to wonder. Have you been able to find an inquisition post mortem for him? And just as importantly, have you seen any of William Tresham's IPMs? They should give the age of his heir Thomas at the time of the inquisition (although it may just say "21 and more"), so it would help us work out how far back we need to look to find evidence of his mother's name.
If William II wasn't knighted, then of course the Visitation must be wrong about Isabel's father having been a knight. I've looked at it again. It dates from 1564 and gives Isabel as the daughter of "(Sir William) Vaux", which I think may mean that the words "Sir William" are a later addition to the MS, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a glossary in that particular volume explaining the use of brackets. So it looks as though whoever gave the original information to the herald, William Harvey, didn't know any more than that Isabel was a Vaux, and whoever afterwards added the name of her father didn't have sound information either, at least about which members of the family had been knights, because only William I and William II can possibly be in the running.
William Vaux III, the one who died at Tewkesbury, was definitely a knight. According to Gregory's Chronicle he was one of those knighted by Prince Edward after the 2nd Battle of St. Albans. He married - for the first time so far as we know - in 1455.

I must have missed the first bit of the discussion about the Visitation in my stuff that got trashed, as I did the info on Isabel's divorce, so sorry. But, as we say, for Isabel to be Thomas T's mother she must have been born about the same time as her sisters. H
Marie:Not to worry. It's just I've been so pressed for time lately it's been difficult to repeat the posts. Of course, they'd only be her sisters if she was the daughter of William I and the mother of Thomas Tresham. I did find some more info last night, though. At the end of May 1441 William Tresham, Esquire, and his wife Isabel were granted an indult to own a portable altar (ref Calendar of Papal Registers, vol 9). So they were married no later than that. It's possible that the altar thing was something they put in for at the start of the marriage, as William's son Thomas Tresham was to do shortly after his marriage, but of course it's possible they'd already been married a long time. I've found it surprisingly difficult to find references to William Tresham plus a wife during his lifetime. The earliest reference I have found to William Vaux II in connection with William Tresham is 1424, when he became one of Tresham's feoffees. That could be the result of them being brothers-in-law, or it could be that Tresham came to marry Isabel later because her father was one of his associates.
Nico and I were very unsure of where some of William Tresham's Northamptonshire property came from when we looked at this earlier, and decided that looking into the history of his manors would be another important, but time-consuming, line of enquiry. What's certain is that Isabel herself was not an heiress, although obviously there would have been some sort of dowry.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-09-24 00:15:33
Doug Stamate
Hilary, In regards to the making of knights, I've always understood there were specific occasions where knighthoods would be conferred; occasions such as coronations, the birth of royal offspring and the like. Since knighthoods were often bestowed for acts of bravery, I'd imagine that's why Richard gave Percy the power to do so when he did. I recall that during the reigns of the first two Stuarts receiving a knighthood involved paying a fee and was used, especially by Charles I, as a way to raise funds without going through Parliament. Besides the requirements concerning horses, arms and men, a knighthood also increased one's liability for various Royal appointments; appointments which could involve the spending of one's own monies with no certainty of recompense (especially under Charles I). Apparently the practice began much earlier than I thought. Might another option for William Vaux and the marriages of two of his daughters to locals in Northamptonshire be the wool trade you also mentioned? Doug Hilary wrote: Trying to answer you, Doug and Marie in one go ..... Knights are usually described as such in their writs and IPM, but of course these can also be wrong. Same with Esquires and sometimes 'Gentlemen' . By the 16th century there were these three definite layers but the 15 century is a bit more hazy. In our case I've so far failed to find a writ or IPM for William Vaux 1405 and I'm still trying to find one for his uncle, the justice Sir William Thyrning, but he is well documented. I suppose as far as knights go you could look through the CPR - there were knighthoods given at coronations and on other occasions, but I recall Richard gave Percy powers to create knighthoods on the Scottish campaign so my guess is it's messy, unless Marie can come up with something else. I spent yesterday looking at William Vaux's other daughter, Eleanor. She married Thomas Giffard of Fringford and Twyford Bucks, the son and heir of Sir Roger Giffard. He died in 1469 and their son was born in 1431.. The Giffards are well documented with generations of IPMs and Proofs of Age. We know Thomas was born on 29 Dec 1408 and Eleanor, like her sister Margaret, is described as the daughter of William Vaux, Esquire and Eleanor Drakelow. I have to say, if the Visitation and Bridges are right about Margaret and Eleanor, it would be strange (but not impossible of course) for it to be wrong about Isabel. We also know that William Vaux was a lawyer, which chimes in with his mother being the sister of a Justice. Do we know of any connections that William Pecche had with Northants? The other two are very local marriages. Northants is a strange county as far as genealogy goes. (BTW Marie I only ever use genealogy sites to start with a 'skeleton', which is discarded in about 30 per cent of cases, same with visitations). That's because I would say that by the fifteenth century at least half the gentry are 'immigrants'. Vaux, Andrew, Clarell all originate in Yorkshire, Spencer and Raleigh in Devon, there is also significant overspill from Hunts and Cambs, like the Mulshos and 'our' William from Bottisham. It's almost certainly because of the wool industry - it is sheep country but it also lies on the cloth route to Witney. Even MB had a flutter on wool in Northants. It may also have something to do with the lands of the monastic orders who had links countrywide - and bred sheep. Digressing a bit, but going back to the conversation with Doug on who turned up at Bosworth one point made (I think by Carpenter) is that knighthoods were no longer very popular. As you know they'd originally been created by the Normans to make money; to be a knight you had to pay a fee. Now by the 15 century the fee had got bigger and you also had to prove you had the trappings of a knight, like armour and a horse, all very expensive. And fighting was no longer the only career. There were much more comfortable ways to make money. So some people actually dodged being knighted because of the expense and obligation. Hence fewer available to fight and certainly at short notice.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-24 10:39:23
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, like you I'm rushing round a bit but I've got some crumbs for you so far.
There seem to have been 4 William Vaux's, 1405 (the lawyer), 1452 (the esquire), 1460 (the knight) and 1471 (the knight Tewkesbury). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that after about 1420 there are a series of deeds, commissions etc which refer to 'William Vaux'. Willaim Vaux 1405 got Harrowden through his mother Joan Thyrning, sister of Sir William. That's as far as I've got with the Vauxs.
The Treshams seem to have come to prominence under Henry V (perhaps through the French Wars?) I can't find them before. in 1420 Henry V granted a William Tresham Northamptonshire lands:
Oct. 28. Commitment to William Thirlewall and William Tresham, Westminster, by mainprise of John Ellerkar of the county of York and John Everdon, clerk, of the county of Sussex, of the keeping of all the lands, rents and services in the towns of Sywell, Barton Pynkeney and Hanyngton, co. Northampton, sometime of Thomas Beston, deceased, of late the chief bailiff of the honour of Walyngford ; to hold the same from Michaelmas last for as long as the premises, which have been seized into the king's hands for divers sums of money wherein the said Thomas stood indebted to the king, shall remain in the king's hand on that account, rendering 100$. yearly by equal portions at Easter and Michaelmas, and maintaining the houses and buildings pertaining to the said lands.1420 Fine Rolls
They continued to gather lands in Northants under Henry VI (CPR 1436/41 -387, CPR 1441-6 331).
William Tresham is last seen in the Fine Rolls in 1449 viz:
William Derby of Northampton,mercer,' William Pecke of Broughton, William Couper of Petreburgh, William Boteller of Barnak, William White of Merston St. Laurence, William Caver of Wenlyngburgh, John Bakon of Kyngesthorp, Richard Chestre of Farndon ; in the county of Northampton ; excepting 1821. Is. 2%d. to be distributed by the abbot of Peterborough, and by William Tresham, esquire, and William Catesby, knights coming to Parliament I can find no writ or IPM for him which is surprising given the circumstances. Note William Pecke of Broughton. The Peckes came from Cople Bedfordshire, the most prominent being John. Is there any way they can have been confused with William Pecche; you'll recall I missed the bit about the divorce agreement so sorry for asking. You see I can't see any record of any of the earlier Pecches of Lulingstone holding anything in Northants.
Finally so far, in the IPM for Thomas Tresham (C145/328) we have him reciting a deed at Rushton on 13 August 1436. Surely he must have been of age to do this, which would make him older than I thought. I had him born about 1420, and it explains why there is no proof of age at his father's death.
Hope some of this helps a bit and I haven't repeated what you already know. H

On Wednesday, 19 September 2018, 22:51:44 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Marie, I've just stumbled upon a writ for William Vaux, Esquire, of Northants & several other counties for 03 May 1452. I never found one for 1405 or anywhere there abouts. So perhaps he died much later than thought and Isabel is indeed his daughter, but considerably younger than her siblings? This would tie in with there not seemingly being a proof of age for his son, the later Sir William?
I think the Visitation is muddled, as they often are. The first writ for 'Sir' William in Nov 1460 calls him William Vaux, Esquire, unless it's a coincidental recall for his father's. In fact do we know when William 1460 was knighted because right up until 1459 he is referred to as Esquire or just William Vaux in the Fine Rolls. I haven't looked at the CPR. If he was knighted just before his death I can see the confusion. It's often assumed that High Sheriffs are knights when in fact many were Esquires.
Marie:This was not the William Vaux who is said to have died in 1405. There were three William Vaux in succession, as I'm sure you know. Almost all the genealogies on the web have the last two as knights, and I must admit I have taken this at face value although I know from the references I have found that William II (died December 1460, yes?) was still an esquire as late as 1459. I sort of assumed he was probably knighted in late 1459 or 1460 after one of the battles, but I've had another look for references to him as a knight with no success, and I'm now starting to wonder. Have you been able to find an inquisition post mortem for him? And just as importantly, have you seen any of William Tresham's IPMs? They should give the age of his heir Thomas at the time of the inquisition (although it may just say "21 and more"), so it would help us work out how far back we need to look to find evidence of his mother's name.
If William II wasn't knighted, then of course the Visitation must be wrong about Isabel's father having been a knight. I've looked at it again. It dates from 1564 and gives Isabel as the daughter of "(Sir William) Vaux", which I think may mean that the words "Sir William" are a later addition to the MS, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a glossary in that particular volume explaining the use of brackets. So it looks as though whoever gave the original information to the herald, William Harvey, didn't know any more than that Isabel was a Vaux, and whoever afterwards added the name of her father didn't have sound information either, at least about which members of the family had been knights, because only William I and William II can possibly be in the running.
William Vaux III, the one who died at Tewkesbury, was definitely a knight. According to Gregory's Chronicle he was one of those knighted by Prince Edward after the 2nd Battle of St. Albans. He married - for the first time so far as we know - in 1455.

I must have missed the first bit of the discussion about the Visitation in my stuff that got trashed, as I did the info on Isabel's divorce, so sorry. But, as we say, for Isabel to be Thomas T's mother she must have been born about the same time as her sisters. H
Marie:Not to worry. It's just I've been so pressed for time lately it's been difficult to repeat the posts. Of course, they'd only be her sisters if she was the daughter of William I and the mother of Thomas Tresham. I did find some more info last night, though. At the end of May 1441 William Tresham, Esquire, and his wife Isabel were granted an indult to own a portable altar (ref Calendar of Papal Registers, vol 9). So they were married no later than that. It's possible that the altar thing was something they put in for at the start of the marriage, as William's son Thomas Tresham was to do shortly after his marriage, but of course it's possible they'd already been married a long time. I've found it surprisingly difficult to find references to William Tresham plus a wife during his lifetime. The earliest reference I have found to William Vaux II in connection with William Tresham is 1424, when he became one of Tresham's feoffees. That could be the result of them being brothers-in-law, or it could be that Tresham came to marry Isabel later because her father was one of his associates.
Nico and I were very unsure of where some of William Tresham's Northamptonshire property came from when we looked at this earlier, and decided that looking into the history of his manors would be another important, but time-consuming, line of enquiry. What's certain is that Isabel herself was not an heiress, although obviously there would have been some sort of dowry.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-24 21:01:16
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

There seem to have been 4 William Vaux's, 1405 (the lawyer), 1452 (the esquire), 1460 (the knight) and 1471 (the knight Tewkesbury). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that after about 1420 there are a series of deeds, commissions etc which refer to 'William Vaux'.
Marie replies:Not sure from what you gave in the rest of the post why there have to be four William Vaux's, or what evidence you have found for the one who died 1460 being a knight. I have refs to William Vaux, Esquire, continuing through the 1450s, and since my last post I have found the writ of diem clausit extremum for him, early in 1461, and that too names him as William Vaux, Esquire. So it does look as though he was never knighted. Unless you have evidence of a death of a Wm Vaux, Esquire, c. 1450, I would suppose we are looking at the same one throughout.
Hilary wrote:The Treshams seem to have come to prominence under Henry V (perhaps through the French Wars?) I can't find them before. in 1420 Henry V granted a William Tresham Northamptonshire lands:
Oct. 28. Commitment to William Thirlewall and William Tresham, Westminster, by mainprise of John Ellerkar of the county of York and John Everdon, clerk, of the county of Sussex, of the keeping of all the lands, rents and services in the towns of Sywell, Barton Pynkeney and Hanyngton, co. Northampton, sometime of Thomas Beston, deceased, of late the chief bailiff of the honour of Walyngford ; to hold the same from Michaelmas last for as long as the premises, which have been seized into the king's hands for divers sums of money wherein the said Thomas stood indebted to the king, shall remain in the king's hand on that account, rendering 100$. yearly by equal portions at Easter and Michaelmas, and maintaining the houses and buildings pertaining to the said lands.1420 Fine Rolls
Marie replies:Thanks for this. I hadn't time to go through the Fine Rolls when I was looking at the subject. I wonder what the King's rationale was in giving the lands to Tresham. Had he just been a war hero, or did he have some kind of connection to them, like Brampton and Margaret Sayer later had to the Tresham dower lands?
William Tresham is said to have been killed on 22 September 1450.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-24 22:28:58
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


I've just realised your count of four W. Vauxs relates to the writ for William Vaux Esquire you said in your previous post you found for May 1452. Could you possibly let me have the details?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 10:18:33
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie
Calendar of Fine Rolls Henry VI Vol 19 1452-61 page 2, May 3 1452 William Vaux, Esquire. He has lands in several counties.

I'm not convinced about Vaux III's knighthood either. He wasn't one the year before he died. I'll look in the CPR.

Sorry about giant print - Yahoo won't let me alter. H


On Monday, 24 September 2018, 22:29:04 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


I've just realised your count of four W. Vauxs relates to the writ for William Vaux Esquire you said in your previous post you found for May 1452. Could you possibly let me have the details?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 10:22:07
Hilary Jones
I do wonder whether this Tresham was a Yorkshireman, as of course Thirlewall and Ellerker were. You'll recall I did say there were a lot of Yorkshire immigrants in Northants. I can't find Treshams mentioned in the Fine Rolls before this and I've been back to the beginning of Edward III. I'll have a look in Yorkshire. H
On Monday, 24 September 2018, 21:01:48 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

There seem to have been 4 William Vaux's, 1405 (the lawyer), 1452 (the esquire), 1460 (the knight) and 1471 (the knight Tewkesbury). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that after about 1420 there are a series of deeds, commissions etc which refer to 'William Vaux'.
Marie replies:Not sure from what you gave in the rest of the post why there have to be four William Vaux's, or what evidence you have found for the one who died 1460 being a knight. I have refs to William Vaux, Esquire, continuing through the 1450s, and since my last post I have found the writ of diem clausit extremum for him, early in 1461, and that too names him as William Vaux, Esquire. So it does look as though he was never knighted. Unless you have evidence of a death of a Wm Vaux, Esquire, c. 1450, I would suppose we are looking at the same one throughout.
Hilary wrote:The Treshams seem to have come to prominence under Henry V (perhaps through the French Wars?) I can't find them before. in 1420 Henry V granted a William Tresham Northamptonshire lands:
Oct. 28. Commitment to William Thirlewall and William Tresham, Westminster, by mainprise of John Ellerkar of the county of York and John Everdon, clerk, of the county of Sussex, of the keeping of all the lands, rents and services in the towns of Sywell, Barton Pynkeney and Hanyngton, co. Northampton, sometime of Thomas Beston, deceased, of late the chief bailiff of the honour of Walyngford ; to hold the same from Michaelmas last for as long as the premises, which have been seized into the king's hands for divers sums of money wherein the said Thomas stood indebted to the king, shall remain in the king's hand on that account, rendering 100$. yearly by equal portions at Easter and Michaelmas, and maintaining the houses and buildings pertaining to the said lands.1420 Fine Rolls
Marie replies:Thanks for this. I hadn't time to go through the Fine Rolls when I was looking at the subject. I wonder what the King's rationale was in giving the lands to Tresham. Had he just been a war hero, or did he have some kind of connection to them, like Brampton and Margaret Sayer later had to the Tresham dower lands?
William Tresham is said to have been killed on 22 September 1450.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 10:32:53
mariewalsh2003

Oh yeah! Thank you!


It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 10:38:16
Hilary Jones
Thanks. Sorry I was rushing. BTW in the writ for William III in 1460 he is described as 'esquire' page 282 same documents. He doesn't seem to have as many lands. H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 10:32:59 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Oh yeah! Thank you!


It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 11:59:49
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 10:32:59 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Oh yeah! Thank you!


It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 13:01:34
Hilary Jones
Few more crumbs.
William Tresham II was Auditor to Henry V (CPR) and audited South Wales for him. In 1420 HV also gave him the wardship of Ralph Parles of Watford & Byfield Northants. The other two given the wardship died before him so he seems to have got the lot (see IPM proof of age of John Parles 1441). He was a friend of Thomas Woodville and supported him when Ralph Parles put in a claim against him.
(BTW Thomas Woodville takes us right back to the Chokkes/Stillingtons since he owned Long Ashton in Somerset through his wife) H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 10:32:59 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Oh yeah! Thank you!


It's 1453, though - there are a couple of changes of year as you go down the page.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-25 18:43:46
mariewalsh2003
Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-26 09:38:02
Hilary Jones
Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-26 12:58:01
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-26 14:51:40
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, just rushing off again but here's a link about Pecche's wives and his will
https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/Vol.016%20-%201886/016-18.pdf

I too think William II needs more investigation and is probably Isabel's father.He has more lands than William III H
On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-27 01:44:51
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties.


Marie asks:

Are we sure the three usually listed are really grandfather, father and son? Aren't all the standard genealogies just relying on the 16th & 17th C visitations? I find it hard to believe there were two separate William Vaux Esquires at the same period but no one at the time felt the need to distinguish them in the records - i.e.as Elder and Younger, or William of Such-and-Such and William of So-and-So. Doesn't feel right. Could we possibly have four generations of father-to-son Williams rather than three?

There is a writ of diem clausit extremum for William Vaux III, Esquire, in the Fine Rolls, as Hilary has found (dated May 1453). So an IPM would have been carried out, even if it no longer survives.

You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time.

The best way to work out who these W Vs were, and what age they were, would be to locate the IPMs and study them.

I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?

To be honest, I have felt all along that there weren't really enough generations in the accepted Vaux family tree to stretch nicely. It just felt like a bit of a pull to make them go round.


Nico:

The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.
Marie:I agree. The idea that Isabel Vaux was Thomas's mother was already held by the family in the late 16th century, but it seems the Vauxs of that period had very little idea about their early 15th-century ancestry; Isabel's appeal to parliament after her husband's murder was well known, and the family still had documentation relating to her quarrel with Thomas over dower, so they would have remembered her and may simply have assumed she was Thomas's mother. William Tresham was certainly married to an Isabel as early as 1441, but as you indicate, Isabel was a very common name, and it wouldn't be the first time I've encountered 15th century men with two or even three wives of the same name. We don't yet properly know the birth years of any of the Vauxs, or of Thomas Tresham, and that certainly doesn't help. I'd like to do this job properly at some time, but I just can't at the moment.
Hilary wrote:I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage.
Marie:Nonetheless, this is the Sir William Pecche to whom Isabel was married. Documents naming Isabel as his wife, and involving William Vaux, involve properties that can definitely be linked to Sir William of Kent. I suggest the link may have been service at court. William Vaux IV (the one knighted at 2 St. Albans) had a job at court, as I remember, and married one of QM's ladies in waiting. William Pecche also had London properties, and was to be Edward IV's chief cupbearer, so probably started his court career under Henry VI. Court life could make for some unlikely matches, geographically, such as that of the Yorkshireman Roger Tocotes to Lady St. Amand.
Hilary:I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.

Marie:It is the idea that Isabel was old that causes me the problem because her tenure of the Tresham lands was for life only, and even if she had been an heiress Brampton could not have kept her lands after her death as by definition he would not father a child on her (not everybody could be as persuasive as Anthony Woodville was with Lady Scales when he got her to settle her lands on him). Brampton didn't claim Isabel's lands after her death - he was granted half of them by King Edward, presumably in consideration of his service to the crown, but he had no legal claim to them (the other half was granted to Sir Thomas Tresham's widow for life, presumably to augment her dower). If Isabel was expected to die soon, then Brampton's benefit would be very short lived, and he'd then be reliant on the King to make him a grant in his own right. That might not have seemed very likely in 1471-2.
Hilary:
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. Nico:Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

Marie:Actually, the entry in Metcalfe's book of knights for the Brampton knighting doesn't give a first name. The document just says "Edward Brampton's son of Portugal was dubbed by the King at Winchester Anno [blank]" - but the entry is next to a set of knightings in 1500. There are problems, for me:1) If the name John is given in another source, then it is strange because Brampton's eldest son and heir at the time of his death in 1508 was called Henrique2) I haven't yet found any evidence of a visit to Winchester by Henry VII at this sort of period.I think we need to know more about the source - when, if at all, did Henry visit Winchester after 1486? Why does the source not give either the first name of Brampton's son or the year of the knighthood? Did the person who wrote it down really know what he was talking about? Is it perhaps a later addition to the manuscript?It's not necessarily that Isabel didn't follow Edward Brampton about. He was in England more of the time than not during the 1470s, whereas after Bosworth he became person non grata, lost all his English property and had to make a new permanent home for himself, first in Bruges and then in Portugal. Because he was a great man by the time he returned to Portugal, we get to hear about the family he had then. Context is everything.

Hilary:I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. C
Marie: Yes, indeed: there is always stuff missing; it's been nearly 600 years, after all. Loads and loads of stuff has gone missing, and a lot of other stuff is now too mouldy or nibbled away to read. (That's why I hate it when historians of the period try to argue, from a lack of evidence for something, that the something in question can't have happened.)Often the pinning down is an illusion, in which a source too late to be reliable is used for want of anything better, or an historian's tentative suggestion gets copied and copied and copied till it becomes 'fact'. It's human nature - we abhor a vacuum. But I do think there is more stuff there on the Vauxs than has been properly studied as yet.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-27 10:24:57
Hilary Jones
I'm off to have a look at the Vauxs now. If they did come from Bottisham Cambs (and William II has Camb mentioned in his writ) then that's also the home of the Argenteins, which is interesting.
Just a final bit on dates for the Treshams which might help. If William was made auditor for Wales in 1416 then I doubt he was a teenager; far too big a job after all the troubles there. So I reckon the very latest he'd be born would be 1390, making him a reasonable 60 when he was Speaker and murdered.
Thomas was part of a deed in 1436 so to be of age to do that he'd have to be born no later than 1415? So if an Isabel Vaux was his mother, it's likely she's a daughter of WV 1405, along with Margaret (who we also know was a daughter) and Eleanor. As you say Marie, it is possible to fit the generations in if William II is born about 1390, William III about 1415 and William IV about 1435 (which is commonly his assumed date of birth).
I can't help thinking there's an weird resemblance in WT's last journey - wasn't he going to Parliament in Northampton, he lived at Shutlanger and would have to go down the Grafton Road? And the suspect was Grey of Ruthin. I wonder if this gave his grandson an idea in 1483?
Incidentally, the Visitation on Morton is also flawed, too many generations. I'd don't know whether you ever read my final post on him but I did get a real lead through his uncle and his cousin Ofka.
What's more than worrying is that nearly all the assumed facts we've challenged on topics in the last year have crumbled; and usually the real evidence has been there all along. In this case think of all the genealogy sites that are wrong and perpetuating myths! It's just too easy to repeat what are thought to be established facts only to find that they were never that in the first place.
Off to the Vaux. H
On Thursday, 27 September 2018, 01:46:59 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties.


Marie asks:

Are we sure the three usually listed are really grandfather, father and son? Aren't all the standard genealogies just relying on the 16th & 17th C visitations? I find it hard to believe there were two separate William Vaux Esquires at the same period but no one at the time felt the need to distinguish them in the records - i.e.as Elder and Younger, or William of Such-and-Such and William of So-and-So. Doesn't feel right. Could we possibly have four generations of father-to-son Williams rather than three?

There is a writ of diem clausit extremum for William Vaux III, Esquire, in the Fine Rolls, as Hilary has found (dated May 1453). So an IPM would have been carried out, even if it no longer survives.

You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time.

The best way to work out who these W Vs were, and what age they were, would be to locate the IPMs and study them.

I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?

To be honest, I have felt all along that there weren't really enough generations in the accepted Vaux family tree to stretch nicely. It just felt like a bit of a pull to make them go round.


Nico:

The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.
Marie:I agree. The idea that Isabel Vaux was Thomas's mother was already held by the family in the late 16th century, but it seems the Vauxs of that period had very little idea about their early 15th-century ancestry; Isabel's appeal to parliament after her husband's murder was well known, and the family still had documentation relating to her quarrel with Thomas over dower, so they would have remembered her and may simply have assumed she was Thomas's mother. William Tresham was certainly married to an Isabel as early as 1441, but as you indicate, Isabel was a very common name, and it wouldn't be the first time I've encountered 15th century men with two or even three wives of the same name. We don't yet properly know the birth years of any of the Vauxs, or of Thomas Tresham, and that certainly doesn't help. I'd like to do this job properly at some time, but I just can't at the moment.
Hilary wrote:I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage.
Marie:Nonetheless, this is the Sir William Pecche to whom Isabel was married. Documents naming Isabel as his wife, and involving William Vaux, involve properties that can definitely be linked to Sir William of Kent. I suggest the link may have been service at court. William Vaux IV (the one knighted at 2 St. Albans) had a job at court, as I remember, and married one of QM's ladies in waiting. William Pecche also had London properties, and was to be Edward IV's chief cupbearer, so probably started his court career under Henry VI. Court life could make for some unlikely matches, geographically, such as that of the Yorkshireman Roger Tocotes to Lady St. Amand.
Hilary:I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.

Marie:It is the idea that Isabel was old that causes me the problem because her tenure of the Tresham lands was for life only, and even if she had been an heiress Brampton could not have kept her lands after her death as by definition he would not father a child on her (not everybody could be as persuasive as Anthony Woodville was with Lady Scales when he got her to settle her lands on him). Brampton didn't claim Isabel's lands after her death - he was granted half of them by King Edward, presumably in consideration of his service to the crown, but he had no legal claim to them (the other half was granted to Sir Thomas Tresham's widow for life, presumably to augment her dower). If Isabel was expected to die soon, then Brampton's benefit would be very short lived, and he'd then be reliant on the King to make him a grant in his own right. That might not have seemed very likely in 1471-2.
Hilary:
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. Nico:Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

Marie:Actually, the entry in Metcalfe's book of knights for the Brampton knighting doesn't give a first name. The document just says "Edward Brampton's son of Portugal was dubbed by the King at Winchester Anno [blank]" - but the entry is next to a set of knightings in 1500. There are problems, for me:1) If the name John is given in another source, then it is strange because Brampton's eldest son and heir at the time of his death in 1508 was called Henrique2) I haven't yet found any evidence of a visit to Winchester by Henry VII at this sort of period.I think we need to know more about the source - when, if at all, did Henry visit Winchester after 1486? Why does the source not give either the first name of Brampton's son or the year of the knighthood? Did the person who wrote it down really know what he was talking about? Is it perhaps a later addition to the manuscript?It's not necessarily that Isabel didn't follow Edward Brampton about. He was in England more of the time than not during the 1470s, whereas after Bosworth he became person non grata, lost all his English property and had to make a new permanent home for himself, first in Bruges and then in Portugal. Because he was a great man by the time he returned to Portugal, we get to hear about the family he had then. Context is everything.

Hilary:I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. C
Marie: Yes, indeed: there is always stuff missing; it's been nearly 600 years, after all. Loads and loads of stuff has gone missing, and a lot of other stuff is now too mouldy or nibbled away to read. (That's why I hate it when historians of the period try to argue, from a lack of evidence for something, that the something in question can't have happened.)Often the pinning down is an illusion, in which a source too late to be reliable is used for want of anything better, or an historian's tentative suggestion gets copied and copied and copied till it becomes 'fact'. It's human nature - we abhor a vacuum. But I do think there is more stuff there on the Vauxs than has been properly studied as yet.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-27 10:43:31
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, at last I'll give you my take on the Beaumonts of Gittisham.
William Beaumont, Sheriff of Devon (died 1416 IPM) seems only to have had one son and one daughter. The son, Sir Thomas (died 1450 in Hungary) was married three times, firstly to Philippa Dynham and secondly to Elizabeth Monke and thirdly to Alice Stukeley (there is some dispute over which or both of these but it doesn't really affect things).
His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
On William Beaumont's death his lands went to his brothers, firstly Philip (died childless in 1473), then Thomas (died childless in 1488) and then Hugh) died 1507 and who left one daughter Margaret who married Sir John Chichester. So the Beaumont lands in Devon went to the Chichesters. All this is pretty well documented, including a will for Philip in the Testamenta Ventusta. Interestingly though, there was a further brother, John, (died 1513) who was a Priest.
I reckon there's still room left for a bit of work on this, particularly the illegitimate line.. H



On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-27 12:31:05
Nicholas Brown
Marie: You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time....
I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?
Does that mean that may have had no land in those counties (ie Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk?) or any connection to them? I knew the Vaux family was connected to Northants, which is also listed, but they don't have any association with the others by themselves, which is why I assumed it was a clue to William II's mother and wife may have been. There were no manors listed in the Fine Rolls; the problem with William II is that I can't see where he fits in at all, although I assume he is originally from Northants.

Marie: Actually, the entry in Metcalfe's book of knights for the Brampton knighting doesn't give a first name. The document just says "Edward Brampton's son of Portugal was dubbed by the King at Winchester Anno [blank]" - but the entry is next to a set of knightings in 1500. There are problems, for me:1) If the name John is given in another source, then it is strange because Brampton's eldest son and heir at the time of his death in 1508 was called Henrique2) I haven't yet found any evidence of a visit to Winchester by Henry VII at this sort of period.I think we need to know more about the source - when, if at all, did Henry visit Winchester after 1486? Why does the source not give either the first name of Brampton's son or the year of the knighthood? Did the person who wrote it down really know what he was talking about? Is it perhaps a later addition to the manuscript?
1) There are discrepancies between the Portuguese records and the listing given in Thomas Beaumont's will. He lists Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane. Since he was family, I would have thought that this was the correct version. Perhaps Henry/Henrique was the heir because John/Joao died before Sir Edward, but I don't have dates for him.2) I was confused about that. I would have thought that a directory of Knights would have the Christian names of all the knights, but there are occasional gaps where only the surname is listed. There were other references to collective knightings, but no names at all, such as the reference to Richard III knighting 'many Northern gentlemen.' There are also mistakes, as John of Gloucester is referred to as 'Richard.' For Sir John Brampton, the exact date wasn't listed, but I think the place was Winchelsea.

Hilary: I can't help thinking there's an weird resemblance in WT's last journey - wasn't he going to Parliament in Northampton, he lived at Shutlanger and would have to go down the Grafton Road? And the suspect was Grey of Ruthin. I wonder if this gave his grandson an idea in 1483?
An interesting connection. I had been thinking how close the Tresham lands were to Stony Stratford.

Hilary: What's more than worrying is that nearly all the assumed facts we've challenged on topics in the last year have crumbled; and usually the real evidence has been there all along. In this case think of all the genealogy sites that are wrong and perpetuating myths! It's just too easy to repeat what are thought to be established facts only to find that they were never that in the first place.
Very true. Online genealogies are very dubious; while a good for a first reference, everything needs to be checked. A lot of these charts are derived from the work of dishonest 'historians' who created fake lineages to connect the families who hired them to royalty. Others are honest mistakes or misguided beliefs. Either way, they keep getting repeated and eventually, in the absence of anything contradictory, people accept them as truth.

Hilary: His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
If Henry used the Beaumont name, even though he was actually a Bodrugan, then it is still worth a look. There are two separate pedigrees for the Beaumonts of Gittisham. This one is on page 65 of the Hathi version, but there is another on page 63. Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, had 3 sons, Thomas (ancestor of the Beaumont's of Gracedieu), John (family tree listed) and Henry. No family details are given for this Henry, but there wasn't and indication that he was dsp either, so I thought that perhaps Thomas and Margaret were from his line. Maybe his family wasn't in the visitations because all the descendants were in Portugal.
Nico
On Thursday, 27 September 2018, 10:43:37 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, at last I'll give you my take on the Beaumonts of Gittisham.
William Beaumont, Sheriff of Devon (died 1416 IPM) seems only to have had one son and one daughter. The son, Sir Thomas (died 1450 in Hungary) was married three times, firstly to Philippa Dynham and secondly to Elizabeth Monke and thirdly to Alice Stukeley (there is some dispute over which or both of these but it doesn't really affect things).
His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
On William Beaumont's death his lands went to his brothers, firstly Philip (died childless in 1473), then Thomas (died childless in 1488) and then Hugh) died 1507 and who left one daughter Margaret who married Sir John Chichester. So the Beaumont lands in Devon went to the Chichesters. All this is pretty well documented, including a will for Philip in the Testamenta Ventusta. Interestingly though, there was a further brother, John, (died 1513) who was a Priest.
I reckon there's still room left for a bit of work on this, particularly the illegitimate line.. H



On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-28 10:15:01
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico and Marie, I think I've found the source of William Vaux's (II and III) 'knighthood'. On page 220 of the Fine Rolls Henry VI Vol 3 on 28 March 1442 there is a call to Parliament to all counties. Tresham and William Vaux are the last of those listed for Northants and each county paragraph ends with the words 'knights coming to Parliament', in other words knights of the shire. From the time of HVI you could be a knight of the shire without being a belted knight - as long as you were suitable. But someone's obviously made the wrong assumption. H
On Thursday, 27 September 2018, 12:33:06 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Marie: You can't always go by the number of surviving writs of diem clausit extremum. Quite often the escheator returned that there had been no lands held in chief in his county; and on other occasions there were lands in counties for which writs don't survive, or which got missed at the time....
I'm sorry, I'm losing the plot, but do we have lists of manors for any of these William Vauxs which we can compare to see if they all belonged to the same branch or not?
Does that mean that may have had no land in those counties (ie Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk?) or any connection to them? I knew the Vaux family was connected to Northants, which is also listed, but they don't have any association with the others by themselves, which is why I assumed it was a clue to William II's mother and wife may have been. There were no manors listed in the Fine Rolls; the problem with William II is that I can't see where he fits in at all, although I assume he is originally from Northants.

Marie: Actually, the entry in Metcalfe's book of knights for the Brampton knighting doesn't give a first name. The document just says "Edward Brampton's son of Portugal was dubbed by the King at Winchester Anno [blank]" - but the entry is next to a set of knightings in 1500. There are problems, for me:1) If the name John is given in another source, then it is strange because Brampton's eldest son and heir at the time of his death in 1508 was called Henrique2) I haven't yet found any evidence of a visit to Winchester by Henry VII at this sort of period.I think we need to know more about the source - when, if at all, did Henry visit Winchester after 1486? Why does the source not give either the first name of Brampton's son or the year of the knighthood? Did the person who wrote it down really know what he was talking about? Is it perhaps a later addition to the manuscript?
1) There are discrepancies between the Portuguese records and the listing given in Thomas Beaumont's will. He lists Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary, and Jane. Since he was family, I would have thought that this was the correct version. Perhaps Henry/Henrique was the heir because John/Joao died before Sir Edward, but I don't have dates for him.2) I was confused about that. I would have thought that a directory of Knights would have the Christian names of all the knights, but there are occasional gaps where only the surname is listed. There were other references to collective knightings, but no names at all, such as the reference to Richard III knighting 'many Northern gentlemen.' There are also mistakes, as John of Gloucester is referred to as 'Richard.' For Sir John Brampton, the exact date wasn't listed, but I think the place was Winchelsea.

Hilary: I can't help thinking there's an weird resemblance in WT's last journey - wasn't he going to Parliament in Northampton, he lived at Shutlanger and would have to go down the Grafton Road? And the suspect was Grey of Ruthin. I wonder if this gave his grandson an idea in 1483?
An interesting connection. I had been thinking how close the Tresham lands were to Stony Stratford.

Hilary: What's more than worrying is that nearly all the assumed facts we've challenged on topics in the last year have crumbled; and usually the real evidence has been there all along. In this case think of all the genealogy sites that are wrong and perpetuating myths! It's just too easy to repeat what are thought to be established facts only to find that they were never that in the first place.
Very true. Online genealogies are very dubious; while a good for a first reference, everything needs to be checked. A lot of these charts are derived from the work of dishonest 'historians' who created fake lineages to connect the families who hired them to royalty. Others are honest mistakes or misguided beliefs. Either way, they keep getting repeated and eventually, in the absence of anything contradictory, people accept them as truth.

Hilary: His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
If Henry used the Beaumont name, even though he was actually a Bodrugan, then it is still worth a look. There are two separate pedigrees for the Beaumonts of Gittisham. This one is on page 65 of the Hathi version, but there is another on page 63. Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, had 3 sons, Thomas (ancestor of the Beaumont's of Gracedieu), John (family tree listed) and Henry. No family details are given for this Henry, but there wasn't and indication that he was dsp either, so I thought that perhaps Thomas and Margaret were from his line. Maybe his family wasn't in the visitations because all the descendants were in Portugal.
Nico
On Thursday, 27 September 2018, 10:43:37 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, at last I'll give you my take on the Beaumonts of Gittisham.
William Beaumont, Sheriff of Devon (died 1416 IPM) seems only to have had one son and one daughter. The son, Sir Thomas (died 1450 in Hungary) was married three times, firstly to Philippa Dynham and secondly to Elizabeth Monke and thirdly to Alice Stukeley (there is some dispute over which or both of these but it doesn't really affect things).
His eldest surviving son married Joan Courtenay who had an affair with Henry Bodrugan (whom she afterwards married) and their illegitimate child John took the name Beaumont. He died in 1487 and only seems to have had one son, Henry - but that's worth looking at.
On William Beaumont's death his lands went to his brothers, firstly Philip (died childless in 1473), then Thomas (died childless in 1488) and then Hugh) died 1507 and who left one daughter Margaret who married Sir John Chichester. So the Beaumont lands in Devon went to the Chichesters. All this is pretty well documented, including a will for Philip in the Testamenta Ventusta. Interestingly though, there was a further brother, John, (died 1513) who was a Priest.
I reckon there's still room left for a bit of work on this, particularly the illegitimate line.. H



On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 13:03:15 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I wish I could find more on William Vaux, II (1453). William Vaux, I, III, IV (1405, 1460 and 1471) were grandfather, son and grandson, but the other William doesn't fit into the family tree. The fine rolls entry shows that he was a significant landowner (Northamptonshire, as well as a few other counties), but I can't find an IPM for him or a listing in the visitations for those counties. However, those lands were probably acquired through a different pattern of inheritance or intermarriage, and my guess is that he is a cousin of the Vauxs of Harrowden. Of the four, he is the most likely candidate to be Isabel Tresham's father, if she was a younger second wife of William Tresham.
The idea of Isabel being Thomas Tresham's mother is a presumption rather than anything definite as can be seen from this note:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Vaux-7The only confirmed children of William Vaux and Eleanor Drakelow were William (1460) and a daughter Eleanor.

Something that may have encouraged the presumption that Isabel was TT's mother may have been the fact that he named his daughter Isabel. However, there could have been other reasons for that choice. Isabel was used in his wife, Margaret Zouche's family; Isabel Tresham may have been young Isabel's godmother or perhaps William Tresham's first wife was also called Isabel. FWIW, neither the Vauxs of Harrowden or Eleanor Drakelow's family used the name Isabel. I often find naming patterns very useful in sorting out family branches, especially in this period, where people were particularly unadventurous with names.

While I can see Brampton making a marriage of convenience to a much older woman, it doesn't make sense for Pecche, so it makes more sense that William II may be Isabel's father, or someone from his branch of the family. I will try to dig some more to see if there is anything out there on who is was or who he married. I assume that his IPM is one that has yet to be published.
As for Margaret Beaumont, I haven't come up with anything better than her being a possible daughter to one of the Henry Beaumonts in the Devon visitation. Margaret did travel with him, but maybe more out of necessity. Up to 1485, he was based in England, but afterwards he had left the country permanently, and we are only aware of her from around 1487. However, they must have been married for some time, as several children were mentioned by then, Actually, he probably married Margaret quite soon after Isabel died. He claimed Isabel's lands in 1480, but he may already have married Margaret, as his son John was knighted in 1501, and I assume he would have been at least 21.

I haven't found any references to Sir John Brampton having interests in England nor what he did to earn his knighthood. He married into the Portuguese nobility and his life seems to have been there. Sir Edward seems to have been finished with England after 1485, and his loyalties were with serving the King of Portugal. However, while I haven't found the links to Margaret Beaufort that I had originally suspected, Thomas Beaumont was doing quite well under Henry, and the Beaumonts were traditionally Lancastrian. He was appointed Archdeacon of Bath in 1499 and Wells in 1502. If he hadn't died in 1507, he may have been on his way to greater things, and a valuable contact for Brampton's children. Thomas Beaumont was most likely only in his 40s when he died, so who knows where his career may have gone is he had lived longer. If Sir Edward backed Perkin, then Thomas Beaumont's career may have suffered along with Brampton's children's prospects and his wife's happiness.
Nico






On Wednesday, 26 September 2018, 09:38:09 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Marie, it's all the blooming Williams! In the first sentence it should be William Vaux III of course not Tresham. And William Tresham was the friend of and executor to the will of Thomas Woodville who died in 1435 and for whom I can find no writ. Sorry - blame the postman for knocking on the door ) ).
The marriage of Isabel Vaux (whichever William's daughter she was) does seem quite logical; the Vauxs and the Treshams were both in the Northamptonshire High Sheriff 'set'. I just can't see where William Pecche comes in since his activities are centred on London and Kent and frankly Isabel doesn't bring much to the marriage. I can even see Edward giving an older widowed Isabel to Brampton as a sort of 'prize' (she'd surely die soon) and she doesn't seem to have travelled with him like Margaret Beaumont by whom he had four children.
BTW I'm still struggling with Margaret Beaumont. As you know there are Beaumonts in the Midlands and in Devon but the Thomas's (her brother) seem to have extinguished themselves. I've been chasing gentry round the fifteenth century for about 6 years now (nowhere near as long as you) and it's quite unusual not to be able to pin them down like these two. The problem's usually which one, like the Waytes. It's almost as though there's some missing stuff. Doesn't help when you start with a fundamentally flawed Visitation though. Cheers H
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 18:43:53 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, two little bits from the CPR Henry VI. In the last mention of William Tresham III in April 1460 he had no title. I think we can therefore assume he was never knighted.
William II, who is mentioned as deceased in 1454, was executor to the will of Thomas Woodville. He actually appears with Thomas quite a few times going back to 1414. I have Thomas dying in 1435 but can find no IPM or writ for him so far. H
Marie:Hi, I'm confused. Are we talking about Tresham or Vaux?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-28 19:59:38
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-28 21:41:58
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-29 10:08:23
Hilary Jones
You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-29 13:34:18
Nicholas Brown
I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-09-29 14:23:16
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-01 13:45:57
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-01 13:48:41
Hilary Jones
Nico do you know that John Alcock (later Bishop of Ely), young Edward's tutor who was with him at Stony Stratford, was keeper of the Domus from 1471-73? He was followed by John Morton.
He'd been commissary to Stillington at St Martin's in the late 1460s (Gergory's Chronicle). He's thought by some to be Stillington's 'pupil' as he was a fellow Yorkshireman, followed him as Chancellor, and was a founder of schools and colleges.
Does anyone know more about Alcock, other than that he seems to have made his peace with Richard but quickly embraced HT when he became king? H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-02 10:59:58
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
Sorry I missed the Alcock post yesterday.

I only know the basics about Alcock, but the fact that he was Master of the Rolls when Brampton was at the Domus Conversorum was what encouraged me to take a more in depth look at Brampton, and what his relationship was with both him and Morton who succeeded him. There was quite a lot of discussion between me and Marie over the summer about the Domus records and Brampton's background, but it may have been among the emails that you didn't get. This is where the whole Isabel Pecche mushroomed from. Brampton was an unconventional resident of the Domus where he was recorded as being there from 1468-1472, with a gap around 1470 (in Flanders with Edward perhaps?). None of the others had anything like the glittering career that he enjoyed and I wondered whether Brampton's success was linked to either his association with either Alcock or Morton. I came to the conclusion that most likely Alcock (or possibly Robert Kirkeham, who preceded him) that discovered whatever talents Brampton had to offer, as Morton took over only after he left (probably when he married Isabel Pecche). I was particularly interested in possible Morton/Margaret Beaufort contacts with Brampton, and I considered the possibility that Brampton may have been some sort of spy, with the Domus Convert as his cover. However, I didn't find anything to support that and from what information there is, Brampton appears to have been loyal to the House of York all the way until his service to the King of Portugal made it in his best interest to support HVII. By this point, Alcock was also loyal to HVII.
I also read up on Rui de Sousa, who gave evidence at Setubal, almost certainly an associate of Brampton's. It was him who gave the story about the Princes being bled to death, which brings me back to Edward V. Perhaps Edward was ill and died after being bled excessively, but Richard survived.
Nico

On Monday, 1 October 2018, 14:03:03 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-02 12:39:25
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, I've now spent hours on the Beaumonts and I think I've extinguished our last hope of attaching Thomas and Margaret to the Midlands lot. I looked at our last chance, the descendants of HB (died 1446) and Joan Heronville. They seem definitely to have had only one son, another Henry and a daughter Anne who is mentioned in one of the NA documents when their manor is 'invaded'. Some websites have another daughter married to William Crompton, but I think this is US wishful thinking (sorry Doug et al!) in trying to link their descendants with the Plantagenets. They were early settlers in MA.
The younger Henry obligingly left a will where he names his children, but no Thomas or Margaret. His eldest son, John left 3 daughters. Joan ,Dorothy and Eleanor, his second son James had only one son, John and that line also petered out.
So like you I'm back to the Beaumont/Bodrugans. This would make sense. For a start, Thomas only mentions the West Country in his will - I know some were prebendaries. Secondly, wasn't Bodrugan also a bit of a rogue adventurer and dabbled in a bit of seafaring and piracy? He was also a friend of Halnath Mauleverer whose wife was a Carminowe. Halnath was in the 'Richard set' and he and his two brothers fought for Richard at Bosworth (and survived) as did Bodrugan. Halnath is often the one wheeled out to show how Richard imposed Northern rule on Cornwall, but he'd been living there for twenty odd years. Brampton could well have mixed in the seafaring circles, just as Marie thinks he might have met isabel on his journeys to the Coast.
So I'm now deep in the Trenewiths, Bodrugans. They are quite well documented. Can you recall what source said Bodrugan and Joan had another child? H
On Monday, 1 October 2018, 14:03:03 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-02 16:57:28
Hilary Jones
Nico, Marie, anyone have a look at this. Page 5
https://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/CCLN-vol%203-2.pdf
The Thomas Beaumont is ours. But look down the page. Now the dates are all wrong of course but surely it's a great co-incidence that the book belonged to 'Peter Warbrick' who has never been found. It depends whether it was actually printed in 1501 of course. But is this another sort of odd 16 century code? Sir T Owen did of course exist as they say,but they're guessing it was him because of 'Lincoln' which could indeed have been the place not the College.
Weird to say the least. H
On Monday, 1 October 2018, 14:03:03 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-02 18:24:54
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 10:12:32
Hilary Jones
Nico. Now I understand everything! Yes I didn't get emails for at least 3 weeks and thought everyone must have been on holiday and I did wonder where this was going. I need to go back to yahoo and dig - which as you know is hard at the moment. If I have Brampton as a spy it's for Edward; he had the most marvellous cover with trade. BTW if there is a Bodrugan connection he ended up in France after 1489. Anyone know what he did there?
Thanks so much for filling me in and sorry to you and Marie that I've seemed so dense.
I find the possible contact between Alcock and Stillington very interesting. We keep going round in the same old circles. In fact I once did propose that Stillington was a spy for Edward as well. He had the most marvellous placements at St Martin's and in the heart of the Lancastrian West Country. H


On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 11:00:06 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Sorry I missed the Alcock post yesterday.

I only know the basics about Alcock, but the fact that he was Master of the Rolls when Brampton was at the Domus Conversorum was what encouraged me to take a more in depth look at Brampton, and what his relationship was with both him and Morton who succeeded him. There was quite a lot of discussion between me and Marie over the summer about the Domus records and Brampton's background, but it may have been among the emails that you didn't get. This is where the whole Isabel Pecche mushroomed from. Brampton was an unconventional resident of the Domus where he was recorded as being there from 1468-1472, with a gap around 1470 (in Flanders with Edward perhaps?). None of the others had anything like the glittering career that he enjoyed and I wondered whether Brampton's success was linked to either his association with either Alcock or Morton. I came to the conclusion that most likely Alcock (or possibly Robert Kirkeham, who preceded him) that discovered whatever talents Brampton had to offer, as Morton took over only after he left (probably when he married Isabel Pecche). I was particularly interested in possible Morton/Margaret Beaufort contacts with Brampton, and I considered the possibility that Brampton may have been some sort of spy, with the Domus Convert as his cover. However, I didn't find anything to support that and from what information there is, Brampton appears to have been loyal to the House of York all the way until his service to the King of Portugal made it in his best interest to support HVII. By this point, Alcock was also loyal to HVII.
I also read up on Rui de Sousa, who gave evidence at Setubal, almost certainly an associate of Brampton's. It was him who gave the story about the Princes being bled to death, which brings me back to Edward V. Perhaps Edward was ill and died after being bled excessively, but Richard survived.
Nico

On Monday, 1 October 2018, 14:03:03 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
No, I don't think that 'Richard Plantagenet' was a stone mason either. If I remember rightly, the legend said he enjoyed reading books in Latin. He was the right age to be one of the Princes, closer in age to Edward, but at that age a few years doesn't matter. I was initially sceptical of Baldwin's theory, although he did have some good ideas, but he could be right. PW's son was also called Richard. He could have left Wales and moved there, but would have been a bit younger - in his 50s rather than around 80. There is also a suggestion that PW had two children, although this could have been a mistake by Andrea Trevisano.. There are also some tales (usually in fiction) that HT loved EoY too much to execute her brother, so he substituted someone else. I don't take this seriously, but Molinet mentioned that PW 'didn't look like King Edward's son.' That was probably a reference to the toll his imprisonment and torture took on him, but it gives a bit of imaginative license.

It is true that it is always Richard, never Edward that comes up in survival stories. The points that you make could suggest that something wasn't quite right with Edward V. Generally, a progress through the country would be an opportunity to introduce crowds to the new King, so it seems strange that this wasn't done. Even in May and June, the plan was that he would be King, so were there no appearances in London. The shaky handwriting did strike me as odd, I would have thought that someone brought up to be King would have practiced his signature as signing documents would have been a big part of his future. Also, his curriculum would have been quite academically rigorous, so why could he barely write his name? Also, Molinet describe Richard as friendly and happy, but Edward as moody and taciturn. That could just have been his personality, but if he was ill - say with something like TB, that would also explain his low spirits.
I do plan to read the JAH book, but haven't yet. However, I did read an old Ricardian Article about a requiem mass for King Edward in the Sistine Chapel. It isn't made clear which King Edward it was. However, Edward's requiem occurred after Louis XI, who died in August 1483. Since Edward IV died in April, it would logically follow that his mass should be first, which raises that question that Edward V died around August, or even early September. Are there any other masses that JAH identifies as possibly being for Edward V?
As for Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont, I'm still looking into him. Some sites say he had at least two sons.
Nico

On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 14:23:20 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico 1316 - the wife was Juliana de Gayton.
Re tthe Woodville connection I was thinking particularly after Bosworth when everything seemed lost to the Yorkist cause, be-it EW or Cis. We know Brampton didn't come back to England for years, but we also know Cis in particular was sending messages to the Continent via the Staple. Brampton, through his trade links would have built up a substantial communication network. I still have my doubts about Perkin but I'm always open to persuasion.
Your points are right about Kent and the Hautes. I would like to know more about 'Richard of Eastwell' I think we've neglected where he turned up for too long. Sir Thomas Moyle, though prominent in HVIII's government, was the son of Sir John Moyle who had been commissioned by Richard to investigate the 1483 rebellions. Now I don't for a moment think that this Richard had spent his life as a jobbing carpenter and it's interesting that Moyle didn't talk about him till after his death. Did Moyle, in very dangerous times, want to mark the passing of the last Plantagenet, whether it was Richard of Shrewsbury, or an illegitimate child of Richard or Edward? Baldwin has written on this and reckons HT was 'in the know'. JAH in his last book had begun to lean in that direction. Interestingly, the Moyles are also connected to the old Stillington gang in Somerset.
BTW Doug, if you're out there, I was going to respond about the theory that Edward V died in the summer of 1483.
There are several things that convince me, and they aren't to do with astrological charts (though I find them fascinating).
1. The handwriting - this is someone who had been educated from birth to be king. Either he had learning difficulties or he was ill
2. He wasn't displayed in any towns or cities en route to London. I find that distinctly odd
3. After he moved to the Tower on 9 May we don't hear or see any more of him but his coronation was being planned. He wasn't a four year-old. Wouldn't he have wanted to start getting involved in this and other things?
4. Very significantly, no pretender ever claimed to be him - which would suggest it could well have been tacit common knowledge that he was dead.
5. Persuading a virtual adult who had been brought up to be king that he should skip off to be a librarian in a foreign university wouldn't be easy to say the least. ROS, like his uncle, had been brought up to play second fiddle; he'd be both younger and much more biddable.
Now I didn't always see eye to eye with JAH but I do on this one; in fact I think he left his best book till last. His arguments BTW aren't the same as mine, but reach the same result.
So - Perkin, Richard of Eastwell, someone else - I think there was a Yorkist heir out there, but it wasn't Edward..

BTW I've just discovered that 'illegitimate' John Beaumont of Gittisham was killed at Stoke Field fighting for Lovell etc. I wonder if he had a brother or sister. Still looking. H


On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 13:36:14 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I do find the relationship between the Woodvilles, Vaux/Treshams and Brampton very interesting. They must have interacted fairly often, and Brampton seems to played an active part on Isabel's Northampton estates. Both he and the Woodvilles were close to Edward IV, so could have had any inside knowledge of what the Woodvilles were up to or what there intentions were?

As we know, Brampton went on to serve Richard III, whereas the Woodvilles fell from grace, but both - for differing reasons had an interest in the protection of the Princes. If Brampton was involved in concealing them, could something have filtered back through his contacts. Another possible Brampton-Woodville connection may have been the Hautes, who were based at Ightham Manor, not far from Lullingstone. The Hautes were connected to the Moyles, who were associated with 'Richard of Eastwell' - whoever he was. I don't know to what extent Isabel kept up her Kent connections, but Kent would have been useful to Brampton and his shipping trade. It could be just coincidence, or maybe something else was going on.
The Murdac case does sound gruesome. When was it?
Nico
On Saturday, 29 September 2018, 10:08:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know regardless of whether our Isabel was a Vaux or not what I'm seeing is that she could have been a potential bridge between Brampton and the Woodvilles. As we know the Vauxs, Treshams and Woodvilles were geographically close and moved in the same circles. That makes Brampton's role in the Perkin Warbeck affair quite interesting.
From what I've found so far WV I had a very short career which started in 1398 and ended after 17 Apr 1405. He was definitely a lawyer and represented Reginald Grey when he was held captive by Owen Glendower (didn't know that before). He was one of those awarded Dullingham Cambridge by the king. Other than that, the outline of the Vauxs of Bottisham in BHOL seems vaguely right, though it gets dates and generations wrong and William Thyrning lived to at least 1420. Still looking. H
(BTW the Sir John Vaux mentioned there was accused of conspiring to murder Sir Thomas Murdac whose body was cut up and distributed round his estate at Edgcote. His wife was burned at the stake for his murder. Very gruesome!)
On Friday, 28 September 2018, 21:44:51 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for clarifying that. I had no idea about MPs being called Knights of Shire. Unfortunately History of Parliament Online doesn't cover the relevant dates, so I can't look him up. I now understand the distinction between writs of of diem clausit extremum and IPMs, and how it is possible that William Vaux didn't have as much land as I had thought, but I will still keep a look out for him.

Nico

On Friday, 28 September 2018, 20:00:21 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico

You've got two separate but related classes of record after the death of a tenant in chief: the writ(s) of diem clausit extremum and the inquisition(s) post mortem.
The writ was the king's order to a county escheator to conduct an inquisition post mortem to find out:
a) what lands the individual held and how,
b) the identity of the heir, and
c) the age of the heir,
so the king would know what lands were to be passed to whom and whether he was old enough to inherit immediately or would first spend time as a royal ward.
So if the king already knew the answers he eouldn't have been ordering the enquiry.
What you are seeing in the Fine Rolls is a summary(calendar) of the contents of the writs of diem clausit extremum, not of the resulting inquisitions, so the counties listed are only the counties whose escheators had been asked to investigate. Some escheators had a two-county area, such as Beds and Bucks, so that gets you two counties named for the price of one.
And yes escheators often did return that there had been no lands in their county. Enfeoffments muddied the waters dreadfully. So at the very least you have to look at the IPMs themselves. These are not to be found in the Fine Rolls. Various scattered vols have been published, but many 15thC IPMs are still unpublished or hard to locate in print hence the Winchester project.

I didn't realise the name ofBrampton's knighted son came from the Beaumont will. I must take a look at the original some day. I wonder if John died young.

Good find on the phantom knighthood, Hilary.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 10:24:50
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie I find that very feasible. I've always thought there must have been a time in the days after Bosworth when there would have been a scramble to secure the safety of ROY, wherever he was lodged till then. After all HT, who must have been more than surprised to have won, couldn't put the whole country in lock-down overnight. There must have been a lot of scuffling everywhere, mainly to the eastern coast.
Re the Beaumonts, I can't see a close relation of the staunchly Lancastrian William Viscount Beaumont lining up with Brampton. After all, he spent his last years being looked after by De Vere, who afterwards married his wife. The only link left I can find is through the illegitimate Beaumont offspring of Henry Bodrugan and Joan Courtenay. There is an IPM for their son John who died after Stoke Field but because it's an attainder as well it doesn't name an heir, though we know it was his son Henry. More digging. H
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 11:01:15
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 14:15:32
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 16:49:02
ricard1an
I don't know is this is relevant and you may have looked at in previous posts that I have not checked out. There was a Beaumont family in North West Leicestershire. The first being Robert de Beaumont, who came over with the Conquerer and became the first Earl of Leicester. The second Earl founded Leicester Abbey. They were established in Coleorton village at the beginning of the 15c. Apparently they were relatives of the Hastings family and Coleorton is only 2 miles from Ashby de la Zouche. In the 13th century there was a Thomas Beaumont who was Earl of Warwick. Some of this is from Wikipedia so I don't know how good the information is. Also on another site it said Sir William Beaumont fought for HT at Bosworth and that the Beaumonts were anti Yorkist.
On Murray and Blue there was a post about Rothley Chapel in Leicestershire and there were Beaumonts connected to Rothley.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-03 16:57:07
Hilary Jones
Yes it is relevant Mary. Thomas Beeaumont and Philippa Maureward we're aunt and uncle ( I thin without my notes) to Viscount William who was friend of DeVere. They're one of the 8 families who never deviated during the WOTR. Hence I don't reckon the Leics lot were involved with Brampton
Rothley chapel is beautiful and was in later times the home of the Babingtons (who did fight for Richard) and William Wilberforce. What nicer combination.
Lovely to hear from you and sorry about awful predictive text on IPhone




Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018, 4:48 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I don't know is this is relevant and you may have looked at in previous posts that I have not checked out. There was a Beaumont family in North West Leicestershire. The first being Robert de Beaumont, who came over with the Conquerer and became the first Earl of Leicester. The second Earl founded Leicester Abbey. They were established in Coleorton village at the beginning of the 15c. Apparently they were relatives of the Hastings family and Coleorton is only 2 miles from Ashby de la Zouche. In the 13th century there was a Thomas Beaumont who was Earl of Warwick. Some of this is from Wikipedia so I don't know how good the information is. Also on another site it said Sir William Beaumont fought for HT at Bosworth and that the Beaumonts were anti Yorkist.


On Murray and Blue there was a post about Rothley Chapel in Leicestershire and there were Beaumonts connected to Rothley.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-04 07:28:11
Hilary Jones
Sorry, what I was saying in a convoluted way is that the Fleetwood who owned the book was the greatx3 grandson of Edward and ROY's nurse. H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 14:16:24 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-04 11:56:14
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary, that is really interesting link. Sir Richard Croft certainly had a strong Yorkist connection. He had been tutor to Edward IV at Ludlow and was member of Edward V's council. I had no idea that Thomas Beaumont's book would travel to a descendant of him and his wife, who was Edward V's nurse, inherited from a man with a name that sounded like a variation on Perkin Warbeck - coincidence perhaps, but maybe it is more personal. At that time, books were precious items and people would pass them on to those they cared about and would value them and ownership was likely to follow a chain of people who knew each other, leaving a trail back to the original owner. There were a lot of Thomas Owens, but it could be the one that was Governor of Carlisle, as that isn't too far from the next owners of the books. I assume he was Welsh; is there any info on him or where he came from? Obviously, Peter Warbrick wouldn't be Perkin himself, but there were rumours of two sons. I had always dismissed this as a mistake, but if there were two, it would make sense for HVII to separate them. Could one have gone North, while the other stayed in Wales?

Back to the Beaumonts; I think that Brampton would be more comfortable with the Bodrugan group than the Lancastrian ones. Initially, I assumed that Margaret and Thomas were from the Lancastrian Beaumonts (either Devon or Leicestershire), and considered the possibility that they encouraged Brampton to change sides and support HVII, but on closer examination that doesn't fit. Therefore, my guess is that they were from the Devon branch (Thomas previous parishes were South West), but unrecorded descendants of a younger son from a few generations back, who may have had a close association with Henry Bodrugan and his son, John Beaumont (my apologies for calling him Henry in some posts. Henry was his son.) If Thomas and Margaret were poor relations, John Beaumont may have given them assistance, and later introduced them to Brampton.
Nico





On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 07:28:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, what I was saying in a convoluted way is that the Fleetwood who owned the book was the greatx3 grandson of Edward and ROY's nurse. H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 14:16:24 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-04 12:53:18
Hilary Jones
Nico there is also this Thomas Owen with a Lincoln connection
Short title: Bonett v The Mayor and Bailiff of Grimsby. Plaintiffs: Symon Bonett, owner... | The National Archives

Short title: Bonett v The Mayor and Bailiff of Grimsby. Plaintiffs: Symo...

The National Archives

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


I'm still chasing Edmund Anderson, the last owner of the book - there's an awful lot of wrong genealogy about him but we do have his father's will. Father seemed to be a friend of Sir John Sheffield. Interestingly Anderson is also from Lincs but would seem to be connected with the Andersons of Newcastle upon Tyne.
We could do with knowing whether 1501 is the correct date for that book couldn't we? Just a few years'earlier and it could have belonged to Perkin. If it is 1501 then it has potentially to be that of his child, which would throw up the possibility of a DNA trace. I've looked for the Warbricks on ancestry and findmypast (both are good because they use soundtex) and it is a very, very rare name and certainly there are no Peters around that date. I've tried blowing up the picture of the signatures to see whether it is 'Petri' but the resolution isn't good enough.
One final thing. The date when Thomas Beaumont emerges after 15 or so years' at Oxford .i.e. the late 1490s, is interesting - this is just after the execution of Perkin. Now whilst most intending prelates such as Morton, Stillington and Alcock stay on at uni for a bit, few who are ambitious leave it that long. And Beaumont didn't seem in a particular hurry to get a bishopric. He is of course mentioned at Wells, but not that much, and they don't do anything special to mark his passing, unlike some of the other officials of the cathedral.
BTW I recall that someone on here did say there were rumours about Katherine Gordon having a child, or children. Can someone remind me what we know? H


On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 11:56:19 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary, that is really interesting link. Sir Richard Croft certainly had a strong Yorkist connection. He had been tutor to Edward IV at Ludlow and was member of Edward V's council. I had no idea that Thomas Beaumont's book would travel to a descendant of him and his wife, who was Edward V's nurse, inherited from a man with a name that sounded like a variation on Perkin Warbeck - coincidence perhaps, but maybe it is more personal. At that time, books were precious items and people would pass them on to those they cared about and would value them and ownership was likely to follow a chain of people who knew each other, leaving a trail back to the original owner. There were a lot of Thomas Owens, but it could be the one that was Governor of Carlisle, as that isn't too far from the next owners of the books. I assume he was Welsh; is there any info on him or where he came from? Obviously, Peter Warbrick wouldn't be Perkin himself, but there were rumours of two sons. I had always dismissed this as a mistake, but if there were two, it would make sense for HVII to separate them. Could one have gone North, while the other stayed in Wales?

Back to the Beaumonts; I think that Brampton would be more comfortable with the Bodrugan group than the Lancastrian ones. Initially, I assumed that Margaret and Thomas were from the Lancastrian Beaumonts (either Devon or Leicestershire), and considered the possibility that they encouraged Brampton to change sides and support HVII, but on closer examination that doesn't fit. Therefore, my guess is that they were from the Devon branch (Thomas previous parishes were South West), but unrecorded descendants of a younger son from a few generations back, who may have had a close association with Henry Bodrugan and his son, John Beaumont (my apologies for calling him Henry in some posts. Henry was his son.) If Thomas and Margaret were poor relations, John Beaumont may have given them assistance, and later introduced them to Brampton.
Nico





On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 07:28:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, what I was saying in a convoluted way is that the Fleetwood who owned the book was the greatx3 grandson of Edward and ROY's nurse. H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 14:16:24 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico & Marie, I've got a link for you between third owner of the book William Fleetwood and the Warbeck story but it needs checking out - I'm in the process of doing that.
William Fleetwood, the owner, had a grandfather, another William, who was married to Helen/Eleanor Standish. Helen's mother was Margaret Croft, a granddaughter of Sir Richard Croft of Croft's Castle Hereford, Treasurer to the Household of Richard and Henry VII. His wife, Eleanor Cornewall, was governess of Edward V (and some say ROY). Neither of these earlier Crofts died until the early 1500s - Eleanor died in 1519.
HT appointed a Thomas Owen as Governor of Carlisle in 1503 but I have yet to chase that up.
BTW I don't think our Beaumonts are linked to Thomas and Philippa Maureward. Their side of the family is far too Lancastrian. But who knows? H
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018, 11:01:21 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Marie,
That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts?
However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way.

It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
Nico







On Tuesday, 2 October 2018, 18:37:05 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico and Hilary?
When I looked into the records of the Domus I found there is a gap in their records ( in fact there are several) for 1470-1 so we simply don't know whether Brampton remained there during the Readeption or not.
My feeling is that he probably did some great service to Edward at that time, which set him up for his marriage and future career, but what it was we don't know. If he had been with Edward on the return crossing, with its tempests, he could have been of great use of course.
According to Rous, Alcock was briefly, or almost, arrested at Stony Stratford - can't check which as I'm away from home - and although he wasn't in trouble during Richard's reign his career did slightly stall. I see no reason to suppose that Brampton, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard at that time, was close to either Alcock or Morton. Had he been, then he would surely have been protected from the Act of Resumption after Bosworth and not had all his lands taken off him.
As Nico says, Sir Edward said what he had to in the end in order to keep his place in Portugal.
I agree the Devon Beaumonts look most likely. I have notes on Bodrugan and the Beaumont link on my computer, so I can check in a month's time if there are any clues there.
The circumstances of Brampton's relocation in 1485 got me thinking. Just supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that PW was RdoY- Sir Edward is still in Portugal when news comes of Bosworth. He then relocated to Bruges, where he probably already had s house.
So when did the DoY join him? I doubt he would have had him with him at the Portuguese court, in which case he would not have arrived with him in Bruges. Same goes for Margaret and their children (probably just a couple of babies at this time). So she would have had to wait until Sir Edward was settled in Bruges and sent for her, then take the children, and whatever servants would come with her, and get them all passage on a ship to the Low Countries. Sir Ed would most likely have made one of his own ships available to them.
Working backwards from this, and from the fact that PW said he later sailed to Portugal in Lady Brampton's service, could RDoY have been living in the Brampton household during Richard's reign, and been smuggled over to Bruges by Lady Margaret Brampton a couple of months after Bosworth posing as a page or something of the sort?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-04 20:32:50
ricard1an
It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-05 09:49:42
Hilary Jones
That's it Mary, it was when we were talking about Craddock. I think we need one of those whiteboards they use in police procedurals!
There is of course another scenario which is that the person executed as Perkin wasn't Perkin - that HT had done a deal to make him shut up but live obscurely. That would save face with EOY and get him out of killing yet another person of royal blood.
Still digging. H On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-05 12:40:09
mariewalsh2003
My problem with Perkin (I think you mean assuming he was really RoY) having been substituted on the gallows is that both he and Warwick were already locked up in the Tower - which was an even safer option- and Perkin couldn't be relied on to cooperate in living obscurely since he'd already made two escape attempts - one from court and one from the Tower. If he'd survived I think he would eventually have resurfaced, and I don't think Katherine Gordon would have been allowed to remarry. If he wasn't the young man publicly hanged, then someone would have noticed.
I do think the two executions were just what they appeared to be - Hebry's final solution. The de la Poles certainly seem to have seen it that way as they finally pressed their own claim.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-05 13:47:32
mariewalsh2003
P.S. Anyone heard of a list of knights who had pledged to support Perkin?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-05 14:03:18
Hilary Jones
I keep an open mind in all this Marie, as you know I've always been the sceptic. I recall someone did say that he'd been so beaten up that he was hard to recognise and Wroe says he was too small to be a son of Edward. I've done another trawl of genealogical sites for 'Warbricks'; in fact there are far more Warbecks, like one in Northants in the early seventeenth century. And then there were all the orphan children in institutions called Perkin Warbeck!
Re the question in your following post, I also did a trawl on NA for Perkin Warbeck in sixteenth century. There are details of some lists there of his attainted supporters (unfortunately not listed there you have to order) and Ancestry refers to some early sixteenth century chancery records concerning him in Kent, Cornwall and London - some as late as 1515. Apologies if you know all this. There does seem to be quite a connection with Cornwall, but this could be with the Cornish being unhappy anyway. I'm really no expert on PW; I enjoyed the Arthurson book because it gave a good background to the international politics of the time, which was very useful. H

On Friday, 5 October 2018, 12:40:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

My problem with Perkin (I think you mean assuming he was really RoY) having been substituted on the gallows is that both he and Warwick were already locked up in the Tower - which was an even safer option- and Perkin couldn't be relied on to cooperate in living obscurely since he'd already made two escape attempts - one from court and one from the Tower. If he'd survived I think he would eventually have resurfaced, and I don't think Katherine Gordon would have been allowed to remarry. If he wasn't the young man publicly hanged, then someone would have noticed.
I do think the two executions were just what they appeared to be - Hebry's final solution. The de la Poles certainly seem to have seen it that way as they finally pressed their own claim.
Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-10-05 15:20:12
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: //snip// I find the possible contact between Alcock and Stillington very interesting. We keep going round in the same old circles. In fact I once did propose that Stillington was a spy for Edward as well. He had the most marvellous placements at St Martin's and in the heart of the Lancastrian West Country. Doug here: Have I been operating under a misapprehension? I've understood that the upper clergy were expected to be, if not a-political, then to a large extent non-partisan when appointed to major positions. If a bishop showed too much partisanship, as apparently Morton, he risked being relegated to lesser posts/appointments. OTOH, if he displayed an ability to, well, set aside his personal preferences and serve competently (and faithfully), he was likely to remain at the center of things. So, while Stillington might prefer a Yorkist king, if a Lancastrian was on the throne, he would be expected to act loyally towards him and severely limit any actions that favored Yorkists at the expense of Lancatrians while serving in any official capacity other than that of Bishop of Bath. So Stillington, regardless of whether it was Henry VI or Edward IV on the throne, would be expected, in fact would be required by law, to keep an eye out when administering his see and report any disaffection he noted. Or, to be more accurate, noted by those Stillington appointed to actually manage the affairs of his see. Perhaps, rather than using spy, it might be better to employ a less emotive term and view what Edward expected from Stillington, and likely his other bishops, was more on the order keeping a finger on the pulse of his see? Just a thought. Doug Who hopes this made sense!
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-05 15:29:11
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
The Thomas Owen in the Bonett case could be the same one. It sounds like piracy, but if it was the 1490s, could it have been something else?

I found a Thomas Beaumont who was a Fellow at Merton College in 1484. If it is the same one, he did hang around in academia for a while, so that does raise the question whether it was an award to a member of Brampton's family. TB's appointment was March 1499, after Perkin's capture.
Warbeck/Warbrick is an unusual name, as is Warbeck. When I had a look on Ancestry and FindMyPast, the hotspots for these names was Lancashire, with a few going towards Carlisle. The idea that Perkin had two sons was the reference from either Sonsino or Trevisano who met Perkin and Lady Katherine at Henry's court in late 1497. There is confirmation of Perkin's 'one year old son' in a letter to Maximilian from a herald, who said he had been taken to London. Since PW and Lady K were married in January 1496, that son would have been born in the Autumn of that year, when payments in James' accounts consistent with gifts to friends on the birth of their children appear. It is possible that Lady K gave birth to another son about a year later, probably just before or shortly after she was captured, hence the reference to 'children.'

After PW's execution, Lady K married 3 more times. The first was to a courtier named James Strangeways in 1512; the next to Matthew Craddock in 1517, and after he died in 1531 to Christopher Ashton. The Craddock marriage is the most interesting. Craddock's daughter married in the Herbert family and her husband was a gentleman usher to HT. That could have been how she met Matthew Craddock, but he was based in Wales, so there wouldn't have been much opportunity to get to know each other. Personally, I suspect that the Herberts were given custody of Perkin's son (later called Richard Perkins) and the connection arose from that. Very few people could claim an close enough emotional connection to Henry to be entrusted with a task of such sensitivity, but he had been raised with them and they had been loyal throughout his reign. Matthew Craddock had also fought in Rhys ap Thomas' retinue. That way, Perkin's son was placed with reliable people and far away.

The idea that PW was switched with someone else is a fringe idea and mostly found in fiction. Generally, I agree with Marie that Henry wouldn't have risked it. However, there is a margin of doubt because he did love Elizabeth of York, and if executing Perkin would have devastated her, I wouldn't completely put it past him to make a substitution, and have PW securely confined in an abbey or monastery and after the dissolution, he ended up with the Moyles in Eastwell.
Nico



On Friday, 5 October 2018, 09:49:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That's it Mary, it was when we were talking about Craddock. I think we need one of those whiteboards they use in police procedurals!
There is of course another scenario which is that the person executed as Perkin wasn't Perkin - that HT had done a deal to make him shut up but live obscurely. That would save face with EOY and get him out of killing yet another person of royal blood.
Still digging. H On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-10-05 15:32:37
Doug Stamate
Nico Just a thought, but weren't there quite a few Flemings brought over in the 16th century during the revolt against Spain in the Low Countries? Perhaps that's where this Warbrick originated? That bit about RoS being seen in England sometime between 1483 and 1485, even if later denied, is very interesting! It would mean we've been looking for RoS in the wrong place, Burgundy/Flanders, all this time, though. Oh well... Doug Nico wrote: That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history..ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251 https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690 William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts? However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way. It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-06 10:07:22
Hilary Jones
Success! In the Appendix to Arthurson is a list of Warbeck's supporters on Deal Beach 3 July1495. It is mainly yeomen and labourers. It contains one Armiger, Henry Mountford of Coleshill who must have been relative of Sir Simon who was executed for the same cause at the Tower in 1495. (There is a story to this; HT had given Simon's High Sheriff job to his uncle Edmund so it's about more than loyalty to Perkin).
William Ashton of Ashton under Lyme is the only gentleman.
The list is too long to put here but I'll put it in a spreadsheet and analyse where they came from.
The reference is PRO KB 9/52 Returned Oyer and Terminer file Kent 1495
The ones sentenced to be executed at the Tower were:
Simon MountfordWilliam Daubeney (Clerk of the Jewels to EIV and Richard)Robert Ratcliff (Porter of Calais)Thomas Cressener (pardoned at the block)Thomas Astwode (pardoned at the block)
William Sutton and Thomas Thwaites also had their sentences commuted, as did four members of the clergy, William Richford, William Sutton, William Worsley and Thomas Powys because HT wanted to save them 'for the sake of the Church'.
Does this help a bit? H


On Friday, 5 October 2018, 13:47:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P.S. Anyone heard of a list of knights who had pledged to support Perkin?
Marie

Re: Clarence Support Group

2018-10-06 10:19:21
Hilary Jones
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' H
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:20:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: //snip// I find the possible contact between Alcock and Stillington very interesting. We keep going round in the same old circles. In fact I once did propose that Stillington was a spy for Edward as well. He had the most marvellous placements at St Martin's and in the heart of the Lancastrian West Country. Doug here: Have I been operating under a misapprehension? I've understood that the upper clergy were expected to be, if not a-political, then to a large extent non-partisan when appointed to major positions. If a bishop showed too much partisanship, as apparently Morton, he risked being relegated to lesser posts/appointments. OTOH, if he displayed an ability to, well, set aside his personal preferences and serve competently (and faithfully), he was likely to remain at the center of things. So, while Stillington might prefer a Yorkist king, if a Lancastrian was on the throne, he would be expected to act loyally towards him and severely limit any actions that favored Yorkists at the expense of Lancatrians while serving in any official capacity other than that of Bishop of Bath. So Stillington, regardless of whether it was Henry VI or Edward IV on the throne, would be expected, in fact would be required by law, to keep an eye out when administering his see and report any disaffection he noted. Or, to be more accurate, noted by those Stillington appointed to actually manage the affairs of his see. Perhaps, rather than using spy, it might be better to employ a less emotive term and view what Edward expected from Stillington, and likely his other bishops, was more on the order keeping a finger on the pulse of his see? Just a thought. Doug Who hopes this made sense!
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-06 10:27:24
Hilary Jones
Yes Nico, I agree with all of this and I'd not heard of the letter to Maximilian.
One of my silly thoughts. The hierarchy of the signatures in our book is based on what Oxford scholars knew of the people - hence Thomas Owen had to be one of theirs from Lincoln College (a bit Inspector Morse that). There are no dates written by the owners. What if Thomas Beaumont put his signature (which is very small) above that of Thomas Owen later - you know to prove that he was the more important owner. Kids often do that. So if he was a mariner, Thomas Owen could have given the book to Perkin and Beaumont later tracked it down, as did probably Fleetwood? H
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:29:16 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
The Thomas Owen in the Bonett case could be the same one. It sounds like piracy, but if it was the 1490s, could it have been something else?

I found a Thomas Beaumont who was a Fellow at Merton College in 1484. If it is the same one, he did hang around in academia for a while, so that does raise the question whether it was an award to a member of Brampton's family. TB's appointment was March 1499, after Perkin's capture.
Warbeck/Warbrick is an unusual name, as is Warbeck. When I had a look on Ancestry and FindMyPast, the hotspots for these names was Lancashire, with a few going towards Carlisle. The idea that Perkin had two sons was the reference from either Sonsino or Trevisano who met Perkin and Lady Katherine at Henry's court in late 1497. There is confirmation of Perkin's 'one year old son' in a letter to Maximilian from a herald, who said he had been taken to London. Since PW and Lady K were married in January 1496, that son would have been born in the Autumn of that year, when payments in James' accounts consistent with gifts to friends on the birth of their children appear. It is possible that Lady K gave birth to another son about a year later, probably just before or shortly after she was captured, hence the reference to 'children.'

After PW's execution, Lady K married 3 more times. The first was to a courtier named James Strangeways in 1512; the next to Matthew Craddock in 1517, and after he died in 1531 to Christopher Ashton. The Craddock marriage is the most interesting. Craddock's daughter married in the Herbert family and her husband was a gentleman usher to HT. That could have been how she met Matthew Craddock, but he was based in Wales, so there wouldn't have been much opportunity to get to know each other. Personally, I suspect that the Herberts were given custody of Perkin's son (later called Richard Perkins) and the connection arose from that. Very few people could claim an close enough emotional connection to Henry to be entrusted with a task of such sensitivity, but he had been raised with them and they had been loyal throughout his reign. Matthew Craddock had also fought in Rhys ap Thomas' retinue. That way, Perkin's son was placed with reliable people and far away.

The idea that PW was switched with someone else is a fringe idea and mostly found in fiction. Generally, I agree with Marie that Henry wouldn't have risked it. However, there is a margin of doubt because he did love Elizabeth of York, and if executing Perkin would have devastated her, I wouldn't completely put it past him to make a substitution, and have PW securely confined in an abbey or monastery and after the dissolution, he ended up with the Moyles in Eastwell.
Nico



On Friday, 5 October 2018, 09:49:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That's it Mary, it was when we were talking about Craddock. I think we need one of those whiteboards they use in police procedurals!
There is of course another scenario which is that the person executed as Perkin wasn't Perkin - that HT had done a deal to make him shut up but live obscurely. That would save face with EOY and get him out of killing yet another person of royal blood.
Still digging. H On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-06 15:42:34
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
I guess I'm going to have to ponder on this for a bit! I've gotten the impression that the staffing the upper reaches of government with non-clerical appointees was just beginning to really take hold (with a few exceptions, of course) during this period so it seemed likely that most bishops would be busy in their sees and not, say, London.
FWIW, I've been re-reading Bryant's trilogy on Pepys and discovered something that hadn't really registered before; namely that, in order to have writs properly processed, a fee was paid to the person who was in charge of issuing the writ. In Pepys case that included commissions for officers of the Royal Navy and victualers and others seeking repayment for providing materiel to the Navy. Am I correct in thinking this wasn't an invention of the Stuarts, but was in operation during the 15th century as well? IOW, to get a legal writ processed, properly, required the payment of a fee to whomever had the right to issue that writ?
I ask because I also understood that members of the clergy, at all levels, also had the right to expect various, well, gratuities, in return for the performance of what was in actuality, their duties and were in addition to whatever other income the parish may have had? Which is a very round-about way of wondering how a bishop was expected to receive his share, since one almost always had to pay it, if not forward, then upward. And, more importantly, how would he know he'd received his cut, if he didn't either keep a fairly close eye on his what went on his see or, at the very least, appoint someone he trusted to see that he did?
Which also means, or so it seems to me, that we might be focusing too closely on bishops, when we should also keep an eye out on who they appointed to manage their see? More importantly, for your investigations anyway, would be who those appointees were related to; because if bishops weren't managing their sees, then whoever was would not only have quite a bit of power, but would also have quite a bit of standing in local society. And a tidy bit of money passing through their hands. Or wouldn't they? Would there be entries in diocesan records, perhaps, that might help? Are diocesan records included in the databanks/bases you have available? Just a thought and hope it's a help!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' 

--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-06 22:46:53
Nicholas Brown
That is interesting that the owners may not be in date order. Fleetwood must be long after Beaumont, but we can't be sure where Peter Warbrick fits in. Most of the references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck that I found date from 1600 onwards, so it is possible that they are descendants of Peter, who was alive a few generations back. (see also post to Doug).
The letter to Maximilian wasn't well known in England, and was found by Ann Wroe in a library in Venice. HT probably was careful to not leave written records of Perkin's children. The second child is more obscure. Trevisano mentioned Perkin's 'fioli,' instead of filio. (I think it is Latin, but different spelling.)

Nico

On Saturday, 6 October 2018, 15:49:16 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Hilary,
I guess I'm going to have to ponder on this for a bit! I've gotten the impression that the staffing the upper reaches of government with non-clerical appointees was just beginning to really take hold (with a few exceptions, of course) during this period so it seemed likely that most bishops would be busy in their sees and not, say, London.
FWIW, I've been re-reading Bryant's trilogy on Pepys and discovered something that hadn't really registered before; namely that, in order to have writs properly processed, a fee was paid to the person who was in charge of issuing the writ. In Pepys case that included commissions for officers of the Royal Navy and victualers and others seeking repayment for providing materiel to the Navy. Am I correct in thinking this wasn't an invention of the Stuarts, but was in operation during the 15th century as well? IOW, to get a legal writ processed, properly, required the payment of a fee to whomever had the right to issue that writ?
I ask because I also understood that members of the clergy, at all levels, also had the right to expect various, well, gratuities, in return for the performance of what was in actuality, their duties and were in addition to whatever other income the parish may have had? Which is a very round-about way of wondering how a bishop was expected to receive his share, since one almost always had to pay it, if not forward, then upward. And, more importantly, how would he know he'd received his cut, if he didn't either keep a fairly close eye on his what went on his see or, at the very least, appoint someone he trusted to see that he did?
Which also means, or so it seems to me, that we might be focusing too closely on bishops, when we should also keep an eye out on who they appointed to manage their see? More importantly, for your investigations anyway, would be who those appointees were related to; because if bishops weren't managing their sees, then whoever was would not only have quite a bit of power, but would also have quite a bit of standing in local society. And a tidy bit of money passing through their hands. Or wouldn't they? Would there be entries in diocesan records, perhaps, that might help? Are diocesan records included in the databanks/bases you have available? Just a thought and hope it's a help!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' 

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-10-06 22:47:21
Nicholas Brown
Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to.
There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.

Nico
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:51:50 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico Just a thought, but weren't there quite a few Flemings brought over in the 16th century during the revolt against Spain in the Low Countries? Perhaps that's where this Warbrick originated? That bit about RoS being seen in England sometime between 1483 and 1485, even if later denied, is very interesting! It would mean we've been looking for RoS in the wrong place, Burgundy/Flanders, all this time, though. Oh well... Doug Nico wrote: That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history..ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251 https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690 William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts? However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way. It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-10-07 10:03:43
Hilary Jones
Nico, you may recall the list I sent to Marie of those accused in 1495. I've started looking at them one by one. The first I chose was William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. He is linked to all the families associated with our book (except Beaumont who we still can't trace). He is related to the Booths, who had a number of bishops and archdeacons, including two former Archbishops of York. (Laurence d 1480 and William d 1464). Looking at some of the names I'm sure some of the others will be too. There were also two Dominican Friars which is interesting. All clergy were pardoned.
I'll keep working on it and keep you posted. Thanks for the info in the second paragraph.
BTW (for Marie as well) I wasn't expecting some sort of Sydney Carton swap at the scaffold, but a much earlier one before he got to the Tower so de Sousa's comments could make sense. H
On Saturday, 6 October 2018, 22:47:30 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to.
There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.

Nico
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:51:50 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico Just a thought, but weren't there quite a few Flemings brought over in the 16th century during the revolt against Spain in the Low Countries? Perhaps that's where this Warbrick originated? That bit about RoS being seen in England sometime between 1483 and 1485, even if later denied, is very interesting! It would mean we've been looking for RoS in the wrong place, Burgundy/Flanders, all this time, though. Oh well... Doug Nico wrote: That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history..ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251 https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690 William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts? However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way. It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-07 10:42:43
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, re your first bit, I'd be interested to know how many bishops spent much time in their see. Waynflete (sorry not Warham), for example, seems to have spent a considerable time out 'fundraising' for his schools (i.e. extorting from unclaimed estates). Stillington had the perfect excuse to stay near the action because he was Dean of St Martin's in London till Bosworth. The bishops of Ely had a house in London, as you know. There's a great joke at the beginning of Wolf Hall when HVIII, wanting to be rid of Wolsey, tells him to go back to his archbishopric in York and Wolsey says he's never been to York in his life. I think that was a bit the nature of bishoprics and prebendaries in the fifteenth century too. This is probably because the clergy's university training was becoming more secular, more law and governance than the scriptures; it was a career, not a holy calling. However of the seventeen bishops and archbishops around by 1483 only one (Lionel Woodville) was under 50 and most over 60. But it still didn't stop them meddling in politics.
And controlling such people could be difficult too because they were appointed supposedly on the recommendation of the Pope. So Stillington, on at least two occasions when quite a young man wrote directly to the Pope complaining about a archbishop (York) and other clergy. He wouldn't be an easy person for Edward to control unless there was some sort of 'bribery' involved, hence my reason for believing he could never have been the person who actually witnessed the Precontract.
Re payment, as I understand it bishops were paid by their 'tenants' when the king authorised it and you're right they did get other dues (and of course payment for their civil offices). I'm no expert on this, but people right up until the mid-sixteenth did leave money (and other things) in their wills to the diocese. How much of this the bishop got I'm not sure.
You make a good point about the relationship between the bishop and those who were left on the ground to run the see. I only know about Stillington. He seems to have had a sidekick, Thomas Overey, who appears in a number of his personal deeds as well. Stuff 'on the ground' at Bath and Wells seems to have been carried out by people like Hugh Sugar and in the minutes of the meetings there's surprisingly little mention of the bishop. As I mentioned earlier there also isn't much mention of Archdeacon Thomas Beaumont until we come to the expenses for his burial (which are comparatively low).
Overall I agree. This area needs a lot more work. Just how much bishops controlled what went on beneath them, or had the power to manipulate it, when they were frequently absent needs looking at. Who knows what clandestine 'fundraising' could have been going on without their knowledge. However, when it comes to the aristocracy or the gentry buying favours that's where the bishop would have the eyes and ears. And in areas like the West Country this was important. H
On Saturday, 6 October 2018, 15:49:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Hilary,
I guess I'm going to have to ponder on this for a bit! I've gotten the impression that the staffing the upper reaches of government with non-clerical appointees was just beginning to really take hold (with a few exceptions, of course) during this period so it seemed likely that most bishops would be busy in their sees and not, say, London.
FWIW, I've been re-reading Bryant's trilogy on Pepys and discovered something that hadn't really registered before; namely that, in order to have writs properly processed, a fee was paid to the person who was in charge of issuing the writ. In Pepys case that included commissions for officers of the Royal Navy and victualers and others seeking repayment for providing materiel to the Navy. Am I correct in thinking this wasn't an invention of the Stuarts, but was in operation during the 15th century as well? IOW, to get a legal writ processed, properly, required the payment of a fee to whomever had the right to issue that writ?
I ask because I also understood that members of the clergy, at all levels, also had the right to expect various, well, gratuities, in return for the performance of what was in actuality, their duties and were in addition to whatever other income the parish may have had? Which is a very round-about way of wondering how a bishop was expected to receive his share, since one almost always had to pay it, if not forward, then upward. And, more importantly, how would he know he'd received his cut, if he didn't either keep a fairly close eye on his what went on his see or, at the very least, appoint someone he trusted to see that he did?
Which also means, or so it seems to me, that we might be focusing too closely on bishops, when we should also keep an eye out on who they appointed to manage their see? More importantly, for your investigations anyway, would be who those appointees were related to; because if bishops weren't managing their sees, then whoever was would not only have quite a bit of power, but would also have quite a bit of standing in local society. And a tidy bit of money passing through their hands. Or wouldn't they? Would there be entries in diocesan records, perhaps, that might help? Are diocesan records included in the databanks/bases you have available? Just a thought and hope it's a help!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Whilst I agree in the main with what you say, Doug, I doubt whether many bishops were too concerned with keeping an eye out on their see unless there was something to 'encourage' them. For example, at one point Stilington had Peter Courtenay next door in Exeter, Alcock up the road at Worcester and the so-called scholarly Warham at Winchester - think of all those rebels in Southampton! The incentive of course is office, if you're a political bishop like Morton and Stillington in the early days.
But the other incentive is of course the Wykhamist ideal of founding schools and colleges, and one of the first things that Stillington did when Richard gained the throne was to push through the approval for his school at Acaster - I'm surprised no Richard dissenters have picked up on that. And he was also a rich man - he acquired Marylebone from Benstede for nearly 400 pounds.
Incidentally, the last provost of the Acaster School at the Reformation was '60 year old William Alcocke' 

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-10-07 11:45:16
Hilary Jones
Sorry Laurence was Bishop of Durham (and secretary to MOA) H
On Sunday, 7 October 2018, 10:03:47 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, you may recall the list I sent to Marie of those accused in 1495. I've started looking at them one by one. The first I chose was William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. He is linked to all the families associated with our book (except Beaumont who we still can't trace). He is related to the Booths, who had a number of bishops and archdeacons, including two former Archbishops of York. (Laurence d 1480 and William d 1464). Looking at some of the names I'm sure some of the others will be too. There were also two Dominican Friars which is interesting. All clergy were pardoned.
I'll keep working on it and keep you posted. Thanks for the info in the second paragraph.
BTW (for Marie as well) I wasn't expecting some sort of Sydney Carton swap at the scaffold, but a much earlier one before he got to the Tower so de Sousa's comments could make sense. H
On Saturday, 6 October 2018, 22:47:30 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to.
There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person.. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.

Nico
On Friday, 5 October 2018, 15:51:50 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico Just a thought, but weren't there quite a few Flemings brought over in the 16th century during the revolt against Spain in the Low Countries? Perhaps that's where this Warbrick originated? That bit about RoS being seen in England sometime between 1483 and 1485, even if later denied, is very interesting! It would mean we've been looking for RoS in the wrong place, Burgundy/Flanders, all this time, though. Oh well... Doug Nico wrote: That is an impressive discovery! The book definitely belonged to the right Thomas Beaumont, who clearly was a very learned man. Perhaps there may be a clue to his origins somewhere in the records of Merton and Magdalen Colleges, but that would be quite a trawl. Peter Warbrick sounds too much like Perkin Warbeck to ignore, so I looked up the name, and found a few 17th century references to the name Warbrick/Warbreck in Lancashire. There were the manors of Layton and Warbreck in the area which is now Blackpool. In 1550 they were acquired by the Fleetwood family. https://www.british-history..ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp247-251 https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9690 William Fleetwood (1525-1594), the owner of the book after Warbrick seems to be from that family. There is an ODNB article on him, but I don't have a subscription to that. Peter Warbrick was most likely from there too. I wonder who Thomas Owen was. Were there any Lancashire Beaumonts? However, I still think that Thomas Beaumont is from the Devon Beaumonts. Bodrugan was a colourful character, with local legends about piracy and seafaring, so he would have been a possible contact for Brampton. Also, Henry Beaumont (Bodrugan) fought for Lincoln, against the traditional Beaumont Lancastrian leaning. However, looking at the timeline, this Henry would have been too young to be the father of Thomas and Margaret. Joan Courtenay's husband, William Beaumont's dates were 1427-1453, so Henry Bodrugan/Beaumont would have been born c 1550. I had thought about a younger brother and sister, but surely their names would be Bodrugan, not Beaumont, and Thomas Beaumont's mother was named in his will as 'Emma Spayne,' a name I couldn't find in any of the visitiations. Therefore, I think the only one left from the visitations is the Henry, youngest son of Sir Thomas Beaumont and Philippa Marward, but they also could be the children of someone descends from someone a few generations back who isn't listed at all. It is possible, that Thomas and Margarets's family were associated with Bodrugan in some way and met Brampton that way. It is possible that Richard of Shrewsbury may have lived with Brampton in England for some time between 1483 and 1485. Rui de Sousa said that he had seen RoS in England, but later denied that it was PW at Setubal. This sighting could have been at Brampton's House, but there it may also have been after Bosworth (earlier discussion, I will have to check it). He may have then gone with Lady Brampton to join Brampton in Flanders. Perhaps Brampton tried to rehome him a few times, but nothing worked out, and he ended up back with them. That story of PW randomly winding up in Middleburg isn't credible as told, but it could be a variation on the truth to disguise previous links between PW and Brampton.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-07 14:12:22
mariewalsh2003
Thanks, Hilary.
What I was wondering, though, was something slightly different. I had an idea that prior to that there may have been an actual ist drawn up of individuals in England who'd pledged their support in advance, and maybe this list got shown to Henry??? But my memory may be playing tricks.

something like the list of people who, according to the Milanes ambassador writing from the French court in Jan 1474, had set their seals to a pledge to support an invasion by the Earl of Oxford, in fact.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cl

2018-10-07 17:12:09
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I'd forgotten that bit about bishops needing Papal recommendations/approval, even if the king had the right to nominate them. I presume it also wasn't easy to remove a bishop, so basically it was a life appointment with the king having limited control over a bishop's actions (other than imprisonment, that is). It also occurred to me that what we see, at least until Henry VIII and his battle with the Roman Catholic Church, it's not a matter of politics in the modern sense, but mostly the ins against the outs. The domestic policies followed by both Lancastrian and Yorkist monarchs were mostly the same; where they differed, if at all, were in their views and actions regarding France, Burgundy and the Low Countries. So a bishop appointed by Henry VI, while undoubtedly tinged with support for the Lancastrian party, wouldn't necessarily devote much time or effort in maintaining Henry on the throne; nor would he devote much time or effort in replacing him, either. Or have I gotten that wrong as well? In your last paragraph you wrote ...when it comes to the aristocracy or gentry buying favours that's where the bishop would have the eyes and ears is what I was thinking of originally. If nothing else, as the equivalent of a major peer of the realm, every bishop would be expected to know what was going on; if only in general terms, anyway. For example, if legal decisions were being sold and bought, the king would certainly want to know it. Not to mention, if there was all that money being spread about by the nobles and gentry, surely the bishop would want to have some of it spread in his direction? Those schools weren't cheap to build or maintain... Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, re your first bit, I'd be interested to know how many bishops spent much time in their see. Waynflete (sorry not Warham), for example, seems to have spent a considerable time out 'fundraising' for his schools (i.e. extorting from unclaimed estates). Stillington had the perfect excuse to stay near the action because he was Dean of St Martin's in London till Bosworth. The bishops of Ely had a house in London, as you know.. There's a great joke at the beginning of Wolf Hall when HVIII, wanting to be rid of Wolsey, tells him to go back to his archbishopric in York and Wolsey says he's never been to York in his life. I think that was a bit the nature of bishoprics and prebendaries in the fifteenth century too. This is probably because the clergy's university training was becoming more secular, more law and governance than the scriptures; it was a career, not a holy calling. However of the seventeen bishops and archbishops around by 1483 only one (Lionel Woodville) was under 50 and most over 60. But it still didn't stop them meddling in politics. And controlling such people could be difficult too because they were appointed supposedly on the recommendation of the Pope. So Stillington, on at least two occasions when quite a young man wrote directly to the Pope complaining about a archbishop (York) and other clergy. He wouldn't be an easy person for Edward to control unless there was some sort of 'bribery' involved, hence my reason for believing he could never have been the person who actually witnessed the Precontract. Re payment, as I understand it bishops were paid by their 'tenants' when the king authorised it and you're right they did get other dues (and of course payment for their civil offices). I'm no expert on this, but people right up until the mid-sixteenth did leave money (and other things) in their wills to the diocese. How much of this the bishop got I'm not sure. You make a good point about the relationship between the bishop and those who were left on the ground to run the see. I only know about Stillington. He seems to have had a sidekick, Thomas Overey, who appears in a number of his personal deeds as well. Stuff 'on the ground' at Bath and Wells seems to have been carried out by people like Hugh Sugar and in the minutes of the meetings there's surprisingly little mention of the bishop. As I mentioned earlier there also isn't much mention of Archdeacon Thomas Beaumont until we come to the expenses for his burial (which are comparatively low). Overall I agree. This area needs a lot more work. Just how much bishops controlled what went on beneath them, or had the power to manipulate it, when they were frequently absent needs looking at. Who knows what clandestine 'fundraising' could have been going on without their knowledge. However, when it comes to the aristocracy or the gentry buying favours that's where the bishop would have the eyes and ears. And in areas like the West Country this was important.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-08 02:14:15
Doug Stamate
Nico, I searched around on the internet and came up with references to Warbreck Moor, but no manors. However, it seems to be in roughly the same area, so likely it's linked. I then did an etymology search on Warbreck and discovered it's from the Old Norse and means hill-top look-out tower. Which leads me to believe that it's just a coincidence that Warbreck/Warbrick is so close in spelling to Warbeck. Just to completely confuse things, I found this link: https://dbnl.org/tekst/llew001infl01_01/llew001infl01_01.pdf which has Flemish/Dutch mercenaries as part of William the Conqueror's army and some even settling in the Chester area! Oi! Interestingly enough, the etymology of Warbeck has it meaning a water (<i>war</i>) course (<i>beck</i>) and the name would be of English origin. The attempt to make Perkin out as a, gasp!, <i>foreign</i> imposter was the reason for spelling the name Warbeque. Another fun fact is that the Wal and War parts of the names Warbeck and Walbeck apparently both represent the word water. Although what else one would expect to find in a brook or stream, I have no idea. Possibly because the first part is from one language and the second part a different one? Anyway, thought you might find this interesting, if not all that helpful! Doug Nico wrote: Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to. There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-08 10:04:37
Hilary Jones
OK I'll have another look. I've got a little bit for you. Molinet said the William Stanley plot numbered forty people who had promised Warbeck 40,000 florins and men. Arthurson says this isn't very accurate and we know the names of more than forty people (his book is not well-referenced). So we have Stanley himself, Henry Mountford, Richard Malory and the list I referred ro which he has kindly analysed for me which is of three gentlemen, thirty six yeomen, two chaplains, a goldsmith. a merchant, four labourers a mariner and two grooms from Yorkshire, Northumberland, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Bristol and London as well as the names I gave you who were later executed or pardoned.
The more analysis I do of the clergy involved (Sutton and Worsley) and the last two owners of the book (Fleetwood and Anderson) the more affinity there is to one family - the Stanleys. Even 'Warbrick', as Nico says, is a Lancashire name. One other potential link - Sir Henry Beaumont (died 1471 in Wednesbury) married Eleanor Sutton who afterwards married Sir George Stanley of Elford. If Margaret and Thomas were his children (there are only three listed) then this would certainly all fit together - even though I initially dismissed them as Lancastrians.
BTW do we know what Sir William did immediately after Bosworth? H
On Sunday, 7 October 2018, 14:12:32 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks, Hilary.
What I was wondering, though, was something slightly different. I had an idea that prior to that there may have been an actual ist drawn up of individuals in England who'd pledged their support in advance, and maybe this list got shown to Henry??? But my memory may be playing tricks.

something like the list of people who, according to the Milanes ambassador writing from the French court in Jan 1474, had set their seals to a pledge to support an invasion by the Earl of Oxford, in fact.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-08 10:27:31
Hilary Jones
Let's say for a minute that a child was hidden in plain sight in Lancashire and given the local name of Peter Warbrick. He was hidden by a powerful person/people, with or without the knowledge of HT, and for years he kept his head down and caused no trouble. However, as the years went by one of his 'keepers' became more and more disillusioned with the HT regime and regretted his part in ever putting him on the throne. The boy was now in his twenties and would undoubtedly draw significant support, if not initially in England, on the Continent. So he was shipped to the Continent, perhaps with the help of Brampton, who was already there and knew all the right contacts.
However, despite starting well it all goes horribly wrong. HT, whether he knows who the boy really is or not, has no option but to arrest him. But he does give him another chance. However, there's no way it can be revealed that the brother or his step-father had played a part in concealing a Yorkist heir - it was one thing to go mad and support one in later life, but quite another to have concealed him (probably with his brother's knowledge) for ten years. And at the middle of this also sits HT's mother.
So with a bit of nifty research Peter Warbrick becomes the imposter Perkin Warbeck, a foreign Pretender, whose father just happens to have been quite a well-know merchant from Tournai - and the rest is history. Now I'm not saying our Peter was necessarily ROY; he could have been an illegitimate child of Edward or Richard, but if there was one out there you can bet WS and Sir Thomas would have known where to find them after Bosworth.
Just one of my fanciful thoughts - see my reply to Marie. H
On Monday, 8 October 2018, 02:14:18 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I searched around on the internet and came up with references to Warbreck Moor, but no manors. However, it seems to be in roughly the same area, so likely it's linked. I then did an etymology search on Warbreck and discovered it's from the Old Norse and means hill-top look-out tower. Which leads me to believe that it's just a coincidence that Warbreck/Warbrick is so close in spelling to Warbeck. Just to completely confuse things, I found this link: https://dbnl.org/tekst/llew001infl01_01/llew001infl01_01.pdf which has Flemish/Dutch mercenaries as part of William the Conqueror's army and some even settling in the Chester area! Oi! Interestingly enough, the etymology of Warbeck has it meaning a water (<i>war</i>) course (<i>beck</i>) and the name would be of English origin. The attempt to make Perkin out as a, gasp!, <i>foreign</i> imposter was the reason for spelling the name Warbeque. Another fun fact is that the Wal and War parts of the names Warbeck and Walbeck apparently both represent the word water. Although what else one would expect to find in a brook or stream, I have no idea. Possibly because the first part is from one language and the second part a different one? Anyway, thought you might find this interesting, if not all that helpful! Doug Nico wrote: Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to. There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.
--
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: [Ric

2018-10-08 17:00:19
Doug Stamate
Hilary, A very interesting post, but (you knew that was coming, didn't you) I do wonder about that hiding in plain sight bit. This may take a bit, but here goes: I currently live in a town of about 5,000. Now, if I really wanted to find out about someone living here, and was willing to devote the time, I could likely do so within a couple of weeks or so simply by well-placed questions. Otherwise, I could just sit back and, again with a few questions, wait for the answers. Now, drop one of those zeros and imagine a village of around 500 people with a few manors scattered about in the vicinity. Some of the people at those manors, even if they don't live in the village, are likely to have relations there. People talk. If someone new arrives at a manor, say a boy of around 10, within a very short time everyone in the area will know he's there. Even if a background is developed for him, say as a second cousin or a nephew of a second cousin, people are going to gnaw away at exactly who that second cousin is. Meanwhile, the person in charge of the boy has committed treason and every member of his household can be charged with misprision of treason. And all it takes for the boom, or axe, to be lowered is for one nosy official, or disgruntled acquaintance, to quietly investigate the supposed relationship and discover it's a complete lie. If the nosy-parker is a disgruntled acquaintance, neighbor or even employee, blackmail would be the least to expect. I don't know about the size and composition of the household of a great noble, but it does seem to me there'd be a greater chance of hiding someone in plain sight amongst the crowds that would accompany someone such as, say, the Earl of Derby... OTOH, if one wanted to hide someone, in late 15th century England and in plain sight, the best place to do so, or so I believe, would be in a large town or city. Which, at that time would have meant London, Bristol, Southampton and one or two others. Now, this doesn't mean the RoS, or his brother for that matter, weren't stashed away in various isolated manors for a time; only that they likely wouldn't have remained at any one manor for any great length of time, staying for, say, a month or so before being sent on. Pre-Bosworth, while there wouldn't have been such a great necessity in keeping hidden where the boys were, I would think that their location/s would still have been kept as quiet as possible. Something along the lines of out of sight, out of mind? If I understand it correctly, the merchant class wasn't looked down during this period as it was later. This would explain RoS being placed with Brampton. It just might also answer the problem of Edward/Richard of Eastwell. What if Edward had been placed with someone who actually built structures, not just made the materials? IOW, just as RoS was destined to learn how to be a merchant, a well-off merchant at that; so his brother was destined to learn how to design and build various structures, houses, warehouses, piers, bridges, fortifications, you name it. However, post-Bosworth, there are just enough people who knew where he was, or what he was doing, so that it became dangerous for him to continue as an architect(?) so, he takes a step downwards, socially and economically, and becomes, if not an actual brick-maker, the person in charge of those making the bricks. Which would necessitate his learning how to make a good brick, even if he rarely would actually have to? Doug Hilary wrote: Let's say for a minute that a child was hidden in plain sight in Lancashire and given the local name of Peter Warbrick. He was hidden by a powerful person/people, with or without the knowledge of HT, and for years he kept his head down and caused no trouble. However, as the years went by one of his 'keepers' became more and more disillusioned with the HT regime and regretted his part in ever putting him on the throne. The boy was now in his twenties and would undoubtedly draw significant support, if not initially in England, on the Continent. So he was shipped to the Continent, perhaps with the help of Brampton, who was already there and knew all the right contacts. However, despite starting well it all goes horribly wrong. HT, whether he knows who the boy really is or not, has no option but to arrest him. But he does give him another chance. However, there's no way it can be revealed that the brother or his step-father had played a part in concealing a Yorkist heir - it was one thing to go mad and support one in later life, but quite another to have concealed him (probably with his brother's knowledge) for ten years. And at the middle of this also sits HT's mother. So with a bit of nifty research Peter Warbrick becomes the imposter Perkin Warbeck, a foreign Pretender, whose father just happens to have been quite a well-know merchant from Tournai - and the rest is history. Now I'm not saying our Peter was necessarily ROY; he could have been an illegitimate child of Edward or Richard, but if there was one out there you can bet WS and Sir Thomas would have known where to find them after Bosworth. Just one of my fanciful thoughts - see my reply to Marie.
--
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: [Ric

2018-10-09 09:15:00
Hilary Jones
Of course I knew!!!! I actually agree with nearly all of what you say, in fact my only real difference is that I do think Edward was dead for the reasons I gave before.
ROS or indeed any royal bastard would be easier to handle. For a start he, and likely they, were younger and they had not been brought up to expect to be king. If you really wanted to lose someone then London is the place, with close on 500,000 inhabitants and people always on the come and go, including abroad. No other town approached it - you're talking about 15,000 for the next one Norwich.You're right too about the Staple - we know it was used for undercover actions by the servants of Cis and EW. No-one seemed to question the movements of the merchant classes, or some mendicant members of the Church. Considering it was an age of spies, I really don't know why, or perhaps they had already been infiltrated and were mutual spying clubs?
In terms of Stanley territory, we're talking about the Welsh and Scottish boarders as well as inland Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire. It's nearly as remote from London as York, so I don't think people talking would be an issue. And the trouble is, I don't think anyone liked HT enough to be bothered to spill the beans. He wasn't known for rewards, more a stint in the Tower to see if you were telling the truth. And how to they know that this wasn't done on his authorisation? Ouch!
I'm of course still working on these connections but there is one other thing. You'll recall I asked Marie if she knew what WS did after Bosworth. You see I wonder who rounded up the royal children at Sheriff Hutton. Now William Stanley was the one who pursued MOA after Tewkesbury; I just wonder if he volunteered to do the same and that's how it all started. I I recall it the Stanleys did raid Richard's tent after the battle. Perhaps they found something there? H


On Monday, 8 October 2018, 17:00:23 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

ley Hilary, A very interesting post, but (you knew that was coming, didn't you) I do wonder about that hiding in plain sight bit. This may take a bit, but here goes: I currently live in a town of about 5,000. Now, if I really wanted to find out about someone living here, and was willing to devote the time, I could likely do so within a couple of weeks or so simply by well-placed questions.. Otherwise, I could just sit back and, again with a few questions, wait for the answers. Now, drop one of those zeros and imagine a village of around 500 people with a few manors scattered about in the vicinity. Some of the people at those manors, even if they don't live in the village, are likely to have relations there. People talk. If someone new arrives at a manor, say a boy of around 10, within a very short time everyone in the area will know he's there. Even if a background is developed for him, say as a second cousin or a nephew of a second cousin, people are going to gnaw away at exactly who that second cousin is. Meanwhile, the person in charge of the boy has committed treason and every member of his household can be charged with misprision of treason. And all it takes for the boom, or axe, to be lowered is for one nosy official, or disgruntled acquaintance, to quietly investigate the supposed relationship and discover it's a complete lie. If the nosy-parker is a disgruntled acquaintance, neighbor or even employee, blackmail would be the least to expect. I don't know about the size and composition of the household of a great noble, but it does seem to me there'd be a greater chance of hiding someone in plain sight amongst the crowds that would accompany someone such as, say, the Earl of Derby... OTOH, if one wanted to hide someone, in late 15th century England and in plain sight, the best place to do so, or so I believe, would be in a large town or city. Which, at that time would have meant London, Bristol, Southampton and one or two others. Now, this doesn't mean the RoS, or his brother for that matter, weren't stashed away in various isolated manors for a time; only that they likely wouldn't have remained at any one manor for any great length of time, staying for, say, a month or so before being sent on. Pre-Bosworth, while there wouldn't have been such a great necessity in keeping hidden where the boys were, I would think that their location/s would still have been kept as quiet as possible. Something along the lines of out of sight, out of mind? If I understand it correctly, the merchant class wasn't looked down during this period as it was later. This would explain RoS being placed with Brampton. It just might also answer the problem of Edward/Richard of Eastwell. What if Edward had been placed with someone who actually built structures, not just made the materials? IOW, just as RoS was destined to learn how to be a merchant, a well-off merchant at that; so his brother was destined to learn how to design and build various structures, houses, warehouses, piers, bridges, fortifications, you name it. However, post-Bosworth, there are just enough people who knew where he was, or what he was doing, so that it became dangerous for him to continue as an architect(?) so, he takes a step downwards, socially and economically, and becomes, if not an actual brick-maker, the person in charge of those making the bricks. Which would necessitate his learning how to make a good brick, even if he rarely would actually have to? Doug Hilary wrote: Let's say for a minute that a child was hidden in plain sight in Lancashire and given the local name of Peter Warbrick. He was hidden by a powerful person/people, with or without the knowledge of HT, and for years he kept his head down and caused no trouble. However, as the years went by one of his 'keepers' became more and more disillusioned with the HT regime and regretted his part in ever putting him on the throne. The boy was now in his twenties and would undoubtedly draw significant support, if not initially in England, on the Continent. So he was shipped to the Continent, perhaps with the help of Brampton, who was already there and knew all the right contacts. However, despite starting well it all goes horribly wrong. HT, whether he knows who the boy really is or not, has no option but to arrest him. But he does give him another chance. However, there's no way it can be revealed that the brother or his step-father had played a part in concealing a Yorkist heir - it was one thing to go mad and support one in later life, but quite another to have concealed him (probably with his brother's knowledge) for ten years. And at the middle of this also sits HT's mother. So with a bit of nifty research Peter Warbrick becomes the imposter Perkin Warbeck, a foreign Pretender, whose father just happens to have been quite a well-know merchant from Tournai - and the rest is history. Now I'm not saying our Peter was necessarily ROY; he could have been an illegitimate child of Edward or Richard, but if there was one out there you can bet WS and Sir Thomas would have known where to find them after Bosworth. Just one of my fanciful thoughts - see my reply to Marie.
--
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: [Ric

2018-10-09 10:22:00
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary and all,

First, Hilary, thanks for the info on PW conspirators -maybe that's what I was thinking of.

It's a bit hard for me to answer questions at present as I don't have access to any books or notes and only phone to write with.
I think we talked about WS after Bosworth before. No actual reward, but he was I seem to recall appointed Chamberlain of the Household. If somebody could check that, and the date of the appointment, that would be good. It seems likely, in any case, that he started informally in the role immediately after the battle, so would have been kept near Henry.

We don't actually know the Stanleys raided Richard's tent. That's MKJ's surmise based on the fact the MB came to own Richard's prayer book, which *may* have been with him in his tent. She could just as easily have been given it by Henry - in fact it would have to have been passed to Henry even if Lord Stanley had found it so on reflection I think it's a bit of a non-theory.

I personally don't think Richard would have trusted any Stanley enough to place RoY up there. Even if he thought they were decent blokes, having HT's mum in the family would rule them out - putting far too much temptation in their way

Vergil says Sir ?Henry Willoughby brought Elizabeth and Warwick back from Sheriff Hutton, but I've not yet found any corroborating evidence for this. Sir Roger Cotom and Windsor herald turned up in York within a couple of days of the battle and one of them arrested Stillington. It's probable, though, that EoY and Warwick were not brought through York and were indeed nabbed by somebody else, since the city records, which are quite full for those days, make no mention of them.
I think Henry would have been sending men out in all directions, but probably not Sir William Stanley, whose new job seems, essentially, to have been to guard him and decide who could be granted access. Looking for clues in surviving borough records would be a useful topic for research.

London was certainly very big, but it was also the one place where RoY would have been frequently on view in the past. The Mayor and council often went over to the palace on business, and the council members were all from the prosperous merchant class. So I think we can rule London out.

I would say Doug hit the nail on the head when he suggested frequent moves. I think that was what H4 did with the Mortimer boys after their foiled escape attempt. That way, by the time rumours have formed in an area and reached enemy ears, they're somewhere else again.

Merchants certainly seem to have been made good use of by Yorkist conspirators during the reign of H7 for passing messages, moving money, etc.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-09 12:32:11
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Doug, that is interesting. Quite a few Dutch words have made their way into English, and it is true that some of William the Conquerors soldiers did come from Flanders. The Flemish form of Warbeck/Werbeque is Weerbeke, and people who have that name could have the same origins or the names could have the same meaning, although different from Warbrick. As you say, Warbrick could be a coincidence, as some people who lived around the area may have adopted the name, but it could also be possible if the Botelers took in one of Perkin's sons, perhaps named Peter, they altered the name to match one of their local villages.

Hilary, I have always been conflicted between Perkin being Richard of Shrewsbury or an illegitimate member of the House of York. John Ashdown-Hill mentioned a 'Lord Bastard' in 1470s, assumed to be Arthur Plantagenet, but perhaps someone else as he seemed a bit older. Whoever he was there was no further record of him. Edward, Richard, George and Margaret were all in Flanders in 1470-71, so I always assumed that any illegitimate child born to them in Flanders would have stayed there, but there could have been another one born in England who Brampton was asked to take overseas. Ann Wroe appeared to lean in favour of a boy named Jehan le Sage, who lived at her Palace at Binche from 1478-1485 (aged about 5-12) being an illegitimate York family member who was later groomed to be Perkin. There wasn't much on him other than he was raised in the manner of a child of the nobility, with Margaret spending a fair amount of money on him and his education, then he disappeared without any further record in late 1485. In Margaret's records, his room was recorded as 'Richard's room.' He couldn't have been RofS, because he was known to have been in England at the time, but if he was an illegitimate child of Margaret or one of her brothers, she may have decided to use him as RoS after the Lambert Simnel plot failed. While I have always thought that he was a better fit for Lambert Simnel, if Ann Wroe is right, where was he before 1478? If he was in England, and someone from the House of York, Sir William Stanley, as a close supporter of Edward may have known about him.
If there was the remote chance of Perkin surviving and being changed with another prisoner before his execution, I think that it would only have been because Henry took a big risk because he was in fact Elizabeth of York's brother. I don't think he would have done it for an illegitimate half sibling that she had no attachment to. Also, he would most likely have been sent to the most secure monastery or abbey. Therefore, if Peter Warbrick is someone significant, I would say that he is one of the next generation (ie one of Perkin's children), and a new identity was arranged by Thomas Stanley and Margaret Beaufort.

Nico
On Monday, 8 October 2018, 10:50:59 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Let's say for a minute that a child was hidden in plain sight in Lancashire and given the local name of Peter Warbrick. He was hidden by a powerful person/people, with or without the knowledge of HT, and for years he kept his head down and caused no trouble. However, as the years went by one of his 'keepers' became more and more disillusioned with the HT regime and regretted his part in ever putting him on the throne. The boy was now in his twenties and would undoubtedly draw significant support, if not initially in England, on the Continent. So he was shipped to the Continent, perhaps with the help of Brampton, who was already there and knew all the right contacts.
However, despite starting well it all goes horribly wrong. HT, whether he knows who the boy really is or not, has no option but to arrest him. But he does give him another chance. However, there's no way it can be revealed that the brother or his step-father had played a part in concealing a Yorkist heir - it was one thing to go mad and support one in later life, but quite another to have concealed him (probably with his brother's knowledge) for ten years. And at the middle of this also sits HT's mother.
So with a bit of nifty research Peter Warbrick becomes the imposter Perkin Warbeck, a foreign Pretender, whose father just happens to have been quite a well-know merchant from Tournai - and the rest is history. Now I'm not saying our Peter was necessarily ROY; he could have been an illegitimate child of Edward or Richard, but if there was one out there you can bet WS and Sir Thomas would have known where to find them after Bosworth.
Just one of my fanciful thoughts - see my reply to Marie. H
On Monday, 8 October 2018, 02:14:18 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I searched around on the internet and came up with references to Warbreck Moor, but no manors. However, it seems to be in roughly the same area, so likely it's linked. I then did an etymology search on Warbreck and discovered it's from the Old Norse and means hill-top look-out tower. Which leads me to believe that it's just a coincidence that Warbreck/Warbrick is so close in spelling to Warbeck. Just to completely confuse things, I found this link: https://dbnl.org/tekst/llew001infl01_01/llew001infl01_01.pdf which has Flemish/Dutch mercenaries as part of William the Conqueror's army and some even settling in the Chester area! Oi! Interestingly enough, the etymology of Warbeck has it meaning a water (<i>war</i>) course (<i>beck</i>) and the name would be of English origin. The attempt to make Perkin out as a, gasp!, <i>foreign</i> imposter was the reason for spelling the name Warbeque. Another fun fact is that the Wal and War parts of the names Warbeck and Walbeck apparently both represent the word water. Although what else one would expect to find in a brook or stream, I have no idea. Possibly because the first part is from one language and the second part a different one? Anyway, thought you might find this interesting, if not all that helpful! Doug Nico wrote: Warbreck/Warbeck does sound like a name with Flemish or German origins. There were a number of Flemish communities in England in the 16ht century, but I believe they tended to concentrate around the South East and East Anglia. I don't think the are area around Warbreck had that much immigration, but I may be wrong. I assume that people called Warbrick/Warbreck could have been people who had lived in that area, but the population was very small. Warbreck was part of the Manor of Warbreck and Layton which the Fleetwood family took over in 1550. Before that it was briefly held by John Browne, a London merchant who bought it from the Boteler family, who had held it for around 300 years. In the late 1400 and early 1500s, the owner was Sir Thomas Boteler, son Sir John Boteler and Margaret Stanley (Thomas Stanley's sister). If Perkin Warbeck did have a second son that would be another reliable family to farm him out to. There reference to Perkin being seen in England after Bosworth is from Rui de Sousa, who wrote to de Puebla in 1496 that when he was the Portuguese Ambassador in England he 'knew the Duke of York well and had seen him there,' but when he saw PW two years later (1487), it was not the same person. This is subject to some interpretation, and de Sousa may not have been telling the truth, as - like Brampton - he needed to please the King of Portugal. However, if the sighting did occur, it is possible that it took place at Brampton's house, and perhaps Richard of Shrewsbury (and Edward V?) were alive in England longer than presumed.
--
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] Re: Clarence Support

2018-10-09 12:32:50
Nicholas Brown
Hi,

I had a look at Sir George Stanley and Eleanor Beaumont and I can't find any record of Thomas and Margaret being her children. If there were, I think there would have been recorded. I have also had a look through visitations of other counties where Beaumonts live such as Yorkshire, but I haven't found anything specific, so I have come to the conclusion that Thomas and Margaret were from a branch of the family that was not socially significant. They also sometimes spell their name as "Beamond/Beamonde." In his will, Thomas requests that the mourning rings be inscripted with "Ye shall Praye for Sir Thomas Beamonde." Before Wells, his previous parishes were St. Clement's, London Christian Malford in Wiltshire and Minehead in Somerset, so I suspect that he has some connection to the Somerset/Wiltshire area. Possibly his father was a London merchant, originally from that area, and the contact with Brampton was in London. He also mentions his mother "Emme Spayne." Parish records from London, Somerset and Wiltshire do have listings for Beamond/e and Span/Spayne, so my guess is that he is from that area. I couldn't find them in the visitations though. They are probably distant cousins of the Devon Beaumonts.

What this suggests is that Thomas Beaumont was not from a prominent family, and had an unremarkable career as a parish priest, with perhaps some time in academia. There are no bequests to Oxford in the will, so I suspect he didn't stay there long. Then, in 1499 he is given a promotion that, if he had lived longer, could have taken him to very high places. It is possible that he was simply and excellent priest and very learned man, but I suspect his links to Brampton may have been very helpful.
Nico
On Thursday, 4 October 2018, 20:32:55 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It may have been me Hilary. I wrote a post about Matthew Craddock for Murray and Blue. Will check out Ann Wroe. There were rumours that they had a child and that he was sent to live in Reynoldston on the Gower Peninsula. There is a legend that a family named Perkins are descended from the child. Matthew Craddock was the Steward of the Gower. I think that I speculated that when H8 allowed her to leave court she may have gone to the Gower to visit her son. Very convenient to have married Craddock. However, it is only speculation on my part.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-09 15:23:26
mariewalsh2003
As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of nowhere.

Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld, as it so chanceth.

Marie

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

2018-10-09 17:05:50
Doug Stamate
Hilary, My remark about the Earl of Derby is, right now, anyway, probably the closest I can get to your fantasy, because I can see the Stanleys hedging their bets  again. Their households, Thomas' and William's, could likely accommodate several new teen-agers without any notice; anywhere else, I don't know. My only objection to the idea of young Edward being dead before Bosworth is the lack of any hint of a mass for him in England. Working on the presumption his death was either from natural causes or as a result of an attempt to kill him and his brother, there'd be absolutely no reason for Richard to not have the appropriate funeral rites for someone who had been not only his brother's eldest son, but someone who had been, however briefly, recognized as King. More importantly, even if the mass/es were done quietly, there'd be no reason not to report what had happened after Bosworth. Even if HT didn't shower lands and money on the informant/s, he'd certainly spread the news. But we hear nothing. I agree that, once HT's methods became better known, the likelihood of anyone volunteering any information dropped precipitously, but during the period immediately after Bosworth that wasn't known and one could easily expect a reward for information about Edward or Richard. As you say, going from town to town, merchants and medicants would be perfect for getting information or money from one place to another. I'm not certain what was involved when it came to leaving ports en route foreign countries. I do know there were people assigned to each port to value incoming cargos, but I don't know about outgoing ones. Wool had to be shipped to Calais for further resale, I believe, but I don't know about other cargos. And, with a little bit of planning, one could always arrange for fishing boat to have a meet-up in mid-channel with a similar boat from Brittany or France. An excellent way of getting out of England if it was feared your face was too well-known or you just didn't want to answer too many questions to a ship's captain - or to the authorities. As for the children at, I believe, Sherriff Hutton, MB ended up in charge of them but, as you say, who was it who brought them to her? And did anything happen to any of them before she took charge? Interesting possibilities there. Doug Hilary wrote: Of course I knew!!!! I actually agree with nearly all of what you say, in fact my only real difference is that I do think Edward was dead for the reasons I gave before. ROS or indeed any royal bastard would be easier to handle. For a start he, and likely they, were younger and they had not been brought up to expect to be king. If you really wanted to lose someone then London is the place, with close on 500,000 inhabitants and people always on the come and go, including abroad. No other town approached it - you're talking about 15,000 for the next one Norwich. You're right too about the Staple - we know it was used for undercover actions by the servants of Cis and EW. No-one seemed to question the movements of the merchant classes, or some mendicant members of the Church. Considering it was an age of spies, I really don't know why, or perhaps they had already been infiltrated and were mutual spying clubs? In terms of Stanley territory, we're talking about the Welsh and Scottish boarders as well as inland Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire. It's nearly as remote from London as York, so I don't think people talking would be an issue. And the trouble is, I don't think anyone liked HT enough to be bothered to spill the beans. He wasn't known for rewards, more a stint in the Tower to see if you were telling the truth. And how to they know that this wasn't done on his authorisation? Ouch! I'm of course still working on these connections but there is one other thing. You'll recall I asked Marie if she knew what WS did after Bosworth. You see I wonder who rounded up the royal children at Sheriff Hutton. Now William Stanley was the one who pursued MOA after Tewkesbury; I just wonder if he volunteered to do the same and that's how it all started. I I recall it the Stanleys did raid Richard's tent after the battle. Perhaps they found something there?
--
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

2018-10-09 20:34:45
ricard1an
I have a vague memory of a story about H7 pardoning James Tyrrell twice within a month. If I remember rightly Tyrrell went to Sheriff Hutton for Henry and then came back. I think it was in 1486 though. Do we know when E of Y and Warwick were sent back from Sheriff Hutton?
Mary

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

2018-10-09 21:32:18
mariewalsh2003
Hi Mary,
These two pardons formed the basis of Josephine Tey's theory in Daughter of Time' that Henry had Tyrell murder the Princes in the summer of 1486.
The pardons are actually published in Campbell's Materials for the Reign of Henry VII'. They are not identical, though. One is to Sir James individually - it may identify him by his English landholdings, I'm not sure. Anyhow, the second is a pardon to every member of the garrison of Guisnes, with Tyrell's name at the top as the castle's constable. It looks to me as though the involvement of the garrison may have become evident after Sir James obtained his first pardon.
Given the fact that these pardons come just one month and two months after the Humphrey Stafford Rebellion, perhaps an involvement with that is the likeliest cause, but to be honest I don't yet know.

So far as I'm aware Henry never sent Tyrell on any errand to Sheriff Hutton. I think he was in Guisnes holding it for Richard at the time of Bosworth. Warwick and Elizabeth were probably brought south within days of the battle. We know Elizabeth was with MB in November 1485 when she moved in with her to the newly refurnished Coldharbour Inn in the city.
I personally think that if Tyrell had any role in moving Princes it would have been before Bosworth.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-11 10:08:28
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie (and others) I'll come back later about Warbeck later but in the meantime I've got a bit of an update on the book.
As it says in the write up it was written by William Lyndewood, who became Bishop of St David's and died in 1446. There are plenty of biographies of him on the web. He was born in Market Rasen Lincs and it was probably his brother, Walter, who was Mayor of Lincoln in 1432. He was a considerable international traveller and diplomat as well.
Lyndewood was also Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1442 and sat on the Council with John, Viscount Beaumont (died 1460). Beaumont's daughter, Joan, was the first wife of Sir William Stanley and she was also the mother of Francis Lovell. The write up says the book was printed in France, but there was an English edition printed in 1496 i.e. before Warbeck's death.
I've also been doing some research on the Spayne family (TB's mother's husband). Sir William Spayne fought for HV at Agincourt and had at least one son, Thomas. They came from Boston Lincs. And the Thomas Owen in the book came from Lincoln. John Beaumont also held large estates in East Anglia inherited from his mother. I shall keep digging. H

On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, 16:54:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.

I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of nowhere.

Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld, as it so chanceth.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-11 10:40:47
Hilary Jones
Just found IPM 28 Oct 1464 on Lord Roos (C145/319) in Lincoln that John Viscount Beaumont held property in Lindwood Lincs, also described as thehome of our cleric. H
On Thursday, 11 October 2018, 10:08:34 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie (and others) I'll come back later about Warbeck later but in the meantime I've got a bit of an update on the book.
As it says in the write up it was written by William Lyndewood, who became Bishop of St David's and died in 1446. There are plenty of biographies of him on the web. He was born in Market Rasen Lincs and it was probably his brother, Walter, who was Mayor of Lincoln in 1432. He was a considerable international traveller and diplomat as well.
Lyndewood was also Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1442 and sat on the Council with John, Viscount Beaumont (died 1460). Beaumont's daughter, Joan, was the first wife of Sir William Stanley and she was also the mother of Francis Lovell. The write up says the book was printed in France, but there was an English edition printed in 1496 i.e. before Warbeck's death.
I've also been doing some research on the Spayne family (TB's mother's husband). Sir William Spayne fought for HV at Agincourt and had at least one son, Thomas. They came from Boston Lincs. And the Thomas Owen in the book came from Lincoln. John Beaumont also held large estates in East Anglia inherited from his mother. I shall keep digging. H

On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, 16:54:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.

I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of nowhere.

Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld, as it so chanceth.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-11 11:07:31
mariewalsh2003
I think it said the book is a copy of Lyndwode's Provinciale'. It had quickly become a standard book on canon law as practised in England and there would have been many copies made at different dates. So ownership of this copy doesn't indicate any biographical ink to William Lyndwoode
and I see no reason to question the date the article gives for this particular MS.
Also the subject matter of the MS would indicate owners would have been people who had studied canon law. In that sense I agree that Lincoln' is more likely to be Lincoln College Oxford, rather than Lincoln's Inn (one of the Inns of Court in lLondon) as suggested in the article, or even the city of Lincoln. And I think we can rule out sailors as owners of the MS.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-11 11:32:03
mariewalsh2003
I just ought to add that so far as I recall the Devon Beaumonts used the spelling Beamont/Beamond just like Thomas and Margaret. So far as I can tell, the lords Beaumont never did. In fact, I remember thinking that in actuality these were two quite distinct surnames at the time. So my feeling is that Thomas and Margaret were not related to the lords Beaumont at all.
As I promised, I will look into Margaret in more depth next month.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-11 13:00:00
mariewalsh2003
PPS I've liked more closely at the illustration of the book given in the article, and I see it includes the inscriptions of Beaumont and Warbrick. Warbricke's is definitely in a later style of writing - late 16th or 17th century at a guess, but definitively not late 15th. I imagine that the date and place of printing of this copy (Paris 1501) is probably printed on a flyleaf.

I really do think this name is pure coincidence, or synchronicity if you prefer, like my grandmother dying 20 years to the day after my grandfather, or the Tyrrell's crisps being next to some Metcalfe goodies in the supermarket last week. Since Perkin was already dead when this book was printed, a direct link is not possible.

Sorry.

Marie

Bulletin Binders

2018-10-11 21:04:45
Gilda Elise
I hope it's okay to post this here. Until I'd had enough and dumped Facebook I would have posted it to the group there. Anyway, I have two each of each of these binders to give away:

The Ricardian blue 9x6

The Ricardian Bulletin blue 10x7

The Ricardian Bulletin white 12x8.5

All I'm asking is the cost of shipping. If anyone is interested, please contact me at gildaevf at comcast dot net.

Thanks!
Gilda

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 11:07:59
Hilary Jones
I think we were speculating a child of Perkin's could have been alive if the date of the book is 1501. I do think it's a very strange co-incidence. I've now been on the three major genealogical websites and the earliest use of the name Peter with Warbrick (and it's variants) is 1830. You'll know that Peter is not a particularly common name in the fifteenth century. It's popular in the North, a bit in the SW (because of its Breton connections) and tends to run in families like the Duttons. When it's used it's used for several generations. And the university could not find him amongst its alumni. I'll have a look at Cambridge just to rule it out.
The name Beaumont is spelled differently on difference occasions for all families and of course we have Bemond and Bello Monte. I do think the Visitation pedigree for the Beaumonts of Gittisham is (again) flawed. If you look at the one for Basset on the opposite page William Beaumont's (d 1416) father is not Sir John but Thomas. Now I've found an IPM for Joan late wife of Thomas Beaumont and Thomas Courtenay in 1421 (I traced her as Joan St Barbe) but can find either Thomas yet (assuming it wasn't Sir Thomas C who died much earlier).
Yes the book is of course on canon law but I'm more interested in Lindwood the diplomat and Keeper of the Privy Seal who travelled to, amongst other places, Portugal. Our last owner, Anderson, was a fervent (and unpopular) Protestant who presided over the trial of Mary Queen of Scots so I'm not quite sure what interest he'd have in its contents. He also came from Lincolnshire. Fleetwood, as well as coming from Lancashire, just happened to be a direct descendant of the princes' nurse (and Edward's tutor). Lots of co-incidences - and lots of work:) H
On Thursday, 11 October 2018, 13:01:43 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

PPS I've liked more closely at the illustration of the book given in the article, and I see it includes the inscriptions of Beaumont and Warbrick. Warbricke's is definitely in a later style of writing - late 16th or 17th century at a guess, but definitively not late 15th. I imagine that the date and place of printing of this copy (Paris 1501) is probably printed on a flyleaf.

I really do think this name is pure coincidence, or synchronicity if you prefer, like my grandmother dying 20 years to the day after my grandfather, or the Tyrrell's crisps being next to some Metcalfe goodies in the supermarket last week. Since Perkin was already dead when this book was printed, a direct link is not possible.

Sorry.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 12:26:19
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,
We'll really have to agree to differ, There's such a difference between establishing a link through dull research, and trawling for coincidences. I know that sounds harsh but I'm afraid it is the way I see this one. Cast the net wide enough ( and assume all persons with similar surnames belong to the same family unit) and coincidences can always be found and enumerated. These are my problems:-
1. I'm not sure it has ever been proven that Perkin left children
2. The Welsh family that claimed descent from him was called Perkins
3. Warbrick/ Warbreck is a genuine English surname and hails from Lancashire, where the name Piers/ Peter was *extremely* common.
4. Thomas Owen has been identified, and P W was merely the man who gave him the book. He may have been a former owner or he may have acquired the book merely in order to give it to Owen, having no particular interest in it himself.
5. There is no reason why a late 16C owner of this book should have had any link to Lyndwood or to the Lords Beaumont.
6. Thomas Beaumont looks likely to have been a member of an entirely different family from the lords Beaumont
7. I personally did not base my notes on the Devonshire Beaumonts on Visitations so my observations on spelling were based purely on contemporary sources. It's very possible the two family names were of different origins, and the Devon ones had no connection to a fair mountain but had a name of perhaps Germanic origin, but the names being similar eventually coalesced. I would need to study. Cannot do do at present.
7. I can't remember the name you gave for Edward V's nurse, but I didn't recognise it and will come back on this after I get home.
I'll now dip out of this thread because I think it's best.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-10-12 15:28:46
Doug Stamate
Nico, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with Marie's reasoning in regards to the book and view, at least for now, as one of those coincidences that pop up and cause one to go What?. I do have another question, though. In your second paragraph you cite John Ashdown-Hill as referring to a Lord Bastard in the 1470s. I checked my volume of Williamson and found that she had the reference as being to Edward V. After mentioning that there had been speculation the Edward attended his uncle's coronation, she wrote: The Tower Wardrobe accounts give elaborate details of clothes apparently prepared for the boy's coronation, but they are inserted among the later coronation accounts with the wearer styled lord Edward, son to late King Edward the Fourth,' which certainly suggests the account was written up, at least, after Edward V had officially been degraded to the Lord Bastard.' This title was given to him after he lost the kingship, because he was allowed to retain the earldoms of March and Pembroke conferred on him by his father. The reference she give is the Complete Works of the Society of Antiquities, Vol. 5, pp.233-8. Do you know where Ashdown-Hill got his reference of a Lord Bastard from? Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Doug, that is interesting. Quite a few Dutch words have made their way into English, and it is true that some of William the Conquerors soldiers did come from Flanders. The Flemish form of Warbeck/Werbeque is Weerbeke, and people who have that name could have the same origins or the names could have the same meaning, although different from Warbrick. As you say, Warbrick could be a coincidence, as some people who lived around the area may have adopted the name, but it could also be possible if the Botelers took in one of Perkin's sons, perhaps named Peter, they altered the name to match one of their local villages. Hilary, I have always been conflicted between Perkin being Richard of Shrewsbury or an illegitimate member of the House of York. John Ashdown-Hill mentioned a 'Lord Bastard' in 1470s, assumed to be Arthur Plantagenet, but perhaps someone else as he seemed a bit older. Whoever he was there was no further record of him. Edward, Richard, George and Margaret were all in Flanders in 1470-71, so I always assumed that any illegitimate child born to them in Flanders would have stayed there, but there could have been another one born in England who Brampton was asked to take overseas. Ann Wroe appeared to lean in favour of a boy named Jehan le Sage, who lived at her Palace at Binche from 1478-1485 (aged about 5-12) being an illegitimate York family member who was later groomed to be Perkin. There wasn't much on him other than he was raised in the manner of a child of the nobility, with Margaret spending a fair amount of money on him and his education, then he disappeared without any further record in late 1485. In Margaret's records, his room was recorded as 'Richard's room.' He couldn't have been RofS, because he was known to have been in England at the time, but if he was an illegitimate child of Margaret or one of her brothers, she may have decided to use him as RoS after the Lambert Simnel plot failed. While I have always thought that he was a better fit for Lambert Simnel, if Ann Wroe is right, where was he before 1478? If he was in England, and someone from the House of York, Sir William Stanley, as a close supporter of Edward may have known about him. If there was the remote chance of Perkin surviving and being changed with another prisoner before his execution, I think that it would only have been because Henry took a big risk because he was in fact Elizabeth of York's brother. I don't think he would have done it for an illegitimate half sibling that she had no attachment to.. Also, he would most likely have been sent to the most secure monastery or abbey. Therefore, if Peter Warbrick is someone significant, I would say that he is one of the next generation (ie one of Perkin's children), and a new identity was arranged by Thomas Stanley and Margaret Beaufort.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 16:06:22
Doug Stamate
Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."



--
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: [Ric

2018-10-12 16:13:52
Hilary Jones
Doug, Nico, Marie, I just think we can't afford to neglect anything, even though of course it may later turn out to be a dead end. We have so very little to go on.
Actually the Oxford translation is that Thomas Owen gave the book to Peter Warbrick, not the other way round. Now to own a book like this in the fifteenth or sixteenth century you had to have some esteem. 'Warbrick' is not an alumni of Oxford or Cambridge - there's no-one of that surname or anything like that suname. Warbreck manor in Lancashire was passed from the Botelers to the Freebodys in the early 16th century - so there's a logic there. The deed was witnessed by the Stanleys.
I have trawled wills, several genealogy sites and there are some Warbricks in Lancs at the end of the sixteenth century, but no Peter. Justice Thomas Owen did have a son called Peter, but that seems to be a dead end. I did even think it could be Marbreck and we have no 'ms'in Owen's writing with which to compare it. I'm just puzzled by who Petri Wabreck is so we can eliminate him.
Doug surnames were regularised at the end of the 14th century by Richard II so the 'de' was dropped.
Marie, believe me I do trawl - for up to 10 hours a day. We just have a different way of approaching things. Cheers :) H


On Friday, 12 October 2018, 15:28:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with Marie's reasoning in regards to the book and view, at least for now, as one of those coincidences that pop up and cause one to go What?. I do have another question, though. In your second paragraph you cite John Ashdown-Hill as referring to a Lord Bastard in the 1470s. I checked my volume of Williamson and found that she had the reference as being to Edward V. After mentioning that there had been speculation the Edward attended his uncle's coronation, she wrote: The Tower Wardrobe accounts give elaborate details of clothes apparently prepared for the boy's coronation, but they are inserted among the later coronation accounts with the wearer styled lord Edward, son to late King Edward the Fourth,' which certainly suggests the account was written up, at least, after Edward V had officially been degraded to the Lord Bastard.' This title was given to him after he lost the kingship, because he was allowed to retain the earldoms of March and Pembroke conferred on him by his father. The reference she give is the Complete Works of the Society of Antiquities, Vol. 5, pp.233-8. Do you know where Ashdown-Hill got his reference of a Lord Bastard from? Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Doug, that is interesting. Quite a few Dutch words have made their way into English, and it is true that some of William the Conquerors soldiers did come from Flanders. The Flemish form of Warbeck/Werbeque is Weerbeke, and people who have that name could have the same origins or the names could have the same meaning, although different from Warbrick. As you say, Warbrick could be a coincidence, as some people who lived around the area may have adopted the name, but it could also be possible if the Botelers took in one of Perkin's sons, perhaps named Peter, they altered the name to match one of their local villages. Hilary, I have always been conflicted between Perkin being Richard of Shrewsbury or an illegitimate member of the House of York. John Ashdown-Hill mentioned a 'Lord Bastard' in 1470s, assumed to be Arthur Plantagenet, but perhaps someone else as he seemed a bit older. Whoever he was there was no further record of him. Edward, Richard, George and Margaret were all in Flanders in 1470-71, so I always assumed that any illegitimate child born to them in Flanders would have stayed there, but there could have been another one born in England who Brampton was asked to take overseas. Ann Wroe appeared to lean in favour of a boy named Jehan le Sage, who lived at her Palace at Binche from 1478-1485 (aged about 5-12) being an illegitimate York family member who was later groomed to be Perkin. There wasn't much on him other than he was raised in the manner of a child of the nobility, with Margaret spending a fair amount of money on him and his education, then he disappeared without any further record in late 1485. In Margaret's records, his room was recorded as 'Richard's room.' He couldn't have been RofS, because he was known to have been in England at the time, but if he was an illegitimate child of Margaret or one of her brothers, she may have decided to use him as RoS after the Lambert Simnel plot failed. While I have always thought that he was a better fit for Lambert Simnel, if Ann Wroe is right, where was he before 1478? If he was in England, and someone from the House of York, Sir William Stanley, as a close supporter of Edward may have known about him. If there was the remote chance of Perkin surviving and being changed with another prisoner before his execution, I think that it would only have been because Henry took a big risk because he was in fact Elizabeth of York's brother. I don't think he would have done it for an illegitimate half sibling that she had no attachment to.. Also, he would most likely have been sent to the most secure monastery or abbey. Therefore, if Peter Warbrick is someone significant, I would say that he is one of the next generation (ie one of Perkin's children), and a new identity was arranged by Thomas Stanley and Margaret Beaufort.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 16:44:20
Hilary Jones
Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

--
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: [Ric

2018-10-12 17:41:28
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
The reference to the Lord Bastard is a different one from the Edward V. It comes from The Private Life of Edward IV, which I read last year and have since taken back to the library. Anyway, if I remember rightly, it was in the section about Arthur Plantagenet and it was a record from Edward IV's accounts. If AP was too young to have been that Lord Bastard, who was he? JAH suggested Perkin with the added possibility that he was in England for a while, but could have been taken abroad. This might fit with Ann Wroe's theory about the Binche boy, although I don't think he went into that.

Even if illegitimate, Perkin is generally assumed to be Edward's, but imho that portrait has more of a Clarence and Margaret vibe.

Nico
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:16:37 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Nico, Marie, I just think we can't afford to neglect anything, even though of course it may later turn out to be a dead end. We have so very little to go on.
Actually the Oxford translation is that Thomas Owen gave the book to Peter Warbrick, not the other way round. Now to own a book like this in the fifteenth or sixteenth century you had to have some esteem. 'Warbrick' is not an alumni of Oxford or Cambridge - there's no-one of that surname or anything like that suname. Warbreck manor in Lancashire was passed from the Botelers to the Freebodys in the early 16th century - so there's a logic there. The deed was witnessed by the Stanleys.
I have trawled wills, several genealogy sites and there are some Warbricks in Lancs at the end of the sixteenth century, but no Peter. Justice Thomas Owen did have a son called Peter, but that seems to be a dead end. I did even think it could be Marbreck and we have no 'ms'in Owen's writing with which to compare it. I'm just puzzled by who Petri Wabreck is so we can eliminate him.
Doug surnames were regularised at the end of the 14th century by Richard II so the 'de' was dropped.
Marie, believe me I do trawl - for up to 10 hours a day. We just have a different way of approaching things. Cheers :) H


On Friday, 12 October 2018, 15:28:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with Marie's reasoning in regards to the book and view, at least for now, as one of those coincidences that pop up and cause one to go What?. I do have another question, though. In your second paragraph you cite John Ashdown-Hill as referring to a Lord Bastard in the 1470s. I checked my volume of Williamson and found that she had the reference as being to Edward V. After mentioning that there had been speculation the Edward attended his uncle's coronation, she wrote: The Tower Wardrobe accounts give elaborate details of clothes apparently prepared for the boy's coronation, but they are inserted among the later coronation accounts with the wearer styled lord Edward, son to late King Edward the Fourth,' which certainly suggests the account was written up, at least, after Edward V had officially been degraded to the Lord Bastard.' This title was given to him after he lost the kingship, because he was allowed to retain the earldoms of March and Pembroke conferred on him by his father. The reference she give is the Complete Works of the Society of Antiquities, Vol. 5, pp.233-8. Do you know where Ashdown-Hill got his reference of a Lord Bastard from? Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Doug, that is interesting. Quite a few Dutch words have made their way into English, and it is true that some of William the Conquerors soldiers did come from Flanders. The Flemish form of Warbeck/Werbeque is Weerbeke, and people who have that name could have the same origins or the names could have the same meaning, although different from Warbrick. As you say, Warbrick could be a coincidence, as some people who lived around the area may have adopted the name, but it could also be possible if the Botelers took in one of Perkin's sons, perhaps named Peter, they altered the name to match one of their local villages. Hilary, I have always been conflicted between Perkin being Richard of Shrewsbury or an illegitimate member of the House of York. John Ashdown-Hill mentioned a 'Lord Bastard' in 1470s, assumed to be Arthur Plantagenet, but perhaps someone else as he seemed a bit older. Whoever he was there was no further record of him. Edward, Richard, George and Margaret were all in Flanders in 1470-71, so I always assumed that any illegitimate child born to them in Flanders would have stayed there, but there could have been another one born in England who Brampton was asked to take overseas. Ann Wroe appeared to lean in favour of a boy named Jehan le Sage, who lived at her Palace at Binche from 1478-1485 (aged about 5-12) being an illegitimate York family member who was later groomed to be Perkin. There wasn't much on him other than he was raised in the manner of a child of the nobility, with Margaret spending a fair amount of money on him and his education, then he disappeared without any further record in late 1485. In Margaret's records, his room was recorded as 'Richard's room.' He couldn't have been RofS, because he was known to have been in England at the time, but if he was an illegitimate child of Margaret or one of her brothers, she may have decided to use him as RoS after the Lambert Simnel plot failed. While I have always thought that he was a better fit for Lambert Simnel, if Ann Wroe is right, where was he before 1478? If he was in England, and someone from the House of York, Sir William Stanley, as a close supporter of Edward may have known about him. If there was the remote chance of Perkin surviving and being changed with another prisoner before his execution, I think that it would only have been because Henry took a big risk because he was in fact Elizabeth of York's brother. I don't think he would have done it for an illegitimate half sibling that she had no attachment to.. Also, he would most likely have been sent to the most secure monastery or abbey. Therefore, if Peter Warbrick is someone significant, I would say that he is one of the next generation (ie one of Perkin's children), and a new identity was arranged by Thomas Stanley and Margaret Beaufort.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 17:42:03
Nicholas Brown

I also noticed that the Bemond/Beamonde spelling was a South West variation, as is Bello Monte. I still wouldn't rule out the Henry I mentioned earlier, 3rd son of Sir John Beaumont and Philippa Marward; otherwise Thomas and Margaret probably descend from further back in the Devon family. The naming pattern of Brampton's children matches that family too; there is a Henry and a George. The Beaumonts may have had a strong Lancastrian affiliation but Brampton and Margaret were married around 1480, a time when the Edward IV and the House of York appeared strongly established. Since this Henry must have been born before 1396, Margaret and Thomas, who were most likely born in the 1450s would be the right age to be his grandchildren. That would put them as part of an important family, but removed from the seat of power within it. The church would take care of Thomas, but Margaret would need a good marriage. Thomas' will suggests that he came from a moderately well off family, so the very rich Brampton was an excellent prospect for her.
I don't know what to make of Peter Warbrick, but it has been interesting speculating. Maximilian's herald only mentioned one child, whereas Trevisano mentioned more than one, but this could have been an error. Unfortunately, Henry didn't keep records of where Perkin's son/s went to, but the Perkins family claim is convincing, considering the connections between Catherine Gordon, Matthew Cradock and the Herberts. I wish it was easier to find someone to DNA test, as all Perkins in that area may not be necessarily related to the Richard Perkins that appears in the genealogical trees which are from a compilation of family histories of the Welsh gentry. According the one that I saw, the male line ran out after a few generations (c. 1600), and the rest of the tree descends from two co-heiresses. However, there could have been other sons from earlier on. Maybe they left the area or even used a different name, so it is not impossible that someone could turn up with a DNA code that matches Richards.

Even if Peter Warbrick is just a coincidence, I wouldn't be surprised if some of Thomas Beaumont's prized possessions did end up with the Brampton family. With the exception of his mother, he made no references or bequests to other family members.
Nico

On Thursday, 11 October 2018, 13:01:43 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

PPS I've liked more closely at the illustration of the book given in the article, and I see it includes the inscriptions of Beaumont and Warbrick. Warbricke's is definitely in a later style of writing - late 16th or 17th century at a guess, but definitively not late 15th. I imagine that the date and place of printing of this copy (Paris 1501) is probably printed on a flyleaf.

I really do think this name is pure coincidence, or synchronicity if you prefer, like my grandmother dying 20 years to the day after my grandfather, or the Tyrrell's crisps being next to some Metcalfe goodies in the supermarket last week. Since Perkin was already dead when this book was printed, a direct link is not possible.

Sorry.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-12 17:42:23
Nicholas Brown


There are a lot of Lincoln connections here. Interesting too about the Spayne family. I suspect that Spayne is the name of a subsequent husband of Thomas and Margaret's mother rather than her own family name, but it may be helpful in pinning down a location. As far as I know, women did take their husband's surnames back then.
As for surnames in general use, this article is quite helpful.BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past
BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...


Nico

On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:47:22 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

--
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: [Ric

2018-10-13 11:47:16
mariewalsh2003
Hi,
I know I said I'd withdraw from this thread, but this is a different topic.
The Lord Bastard reference in Edward IV's account was found by Cora Scofiekd back in the 1920s. It is payment for clothing for The Lord Bastard' to attend the wedding of RoY to Anne Mowbray in Jan 1477. Scofield assumed it meant Arthur Plantagenet, and this assumption was followed by Muriel Byrne, but Arthur's career and reference to other ceremonial occasions suggest Arthur, even if born by this time (which is doubtful) may have been too young to have taken part.
The same difficulty, I think, arises with the Perkin theory. RoY was only 3 1/2, and had to be carried and helped along through the proceedings. You couldn't easily have toddler attendants as well. I know it's done at royal weddings now, but only children of 8 and more have been involved in any 15th C ceremonies I've looked at. One day I should try to look at this doc to see if it indicates the amount of cloth being provided for this individual.
The other question would be whether the Binche Boy ever returned to England - the Binche Accounts might answer that one- or whether he is likely to have been the king's bastard - Ann Wroe had the impression he was being treated at Binche as though of yeoman status, and he is not referred to in those accounts as a bastard. Jean le Saige, the name Margaret gave him, is not a very dignified name for a royal bastard, and indeed Edward had a fool of the same name. Nor was he the only boy she adopted in this way over the course of her life in Burgundy.
I also have a problem with the Binche boy reappearing as PW because he would have been easily recognised by every member of Margaret's household.
Ann Wroe says the Binche Boy disappeared from the records there some time after Bosworth, but I think that when I looked up to find her source it was a surviving set of accounts for Binche that ends in 1485. Work to be done there one day, for sure.
Edward could well have had an older bastard who later died, or who didn't make a great career and so simply isn't known about.
It's intriguing, but I'm always wary of trying to feed every unexplained reference in the records into the story of the Princes and Warbeck. I'd rather simply keep digging in the hope that further information will turn up.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-13 11:48:50
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, yes I was looking for a 'Mr Spayne' second husband.
I might be able to offer you another crumb about the book (sorry Marie!) and I could have found a bishop spy for Doug!
If this is the 1501 French edition I reckon it came to TB through the estate of his Bishop Oliver King, who died in 1503. I have two reasons for thinking this:
1. King had been Edward's secretary specialising in French affairs so was likely to have had an interest in something of this nature.
2. William Cosyn, Dean of Wells and King's nephew was the executor of King's will and that of TB four years' later. He received a pardon from Henry VIII for this. I've no idea why.
I think we should pay close attention to King. After Bosworth he immediately transferred his loyalty to HT saying that God had instructed him to do so (!). He then clearly became a good buddy of HT and just think of all the knowledge he'd have had of the Yorkist court and its people - watch out Stanley! There's also a case in the NA where he complains he's been robbed of plate whilst imprisoned by Richard Duke of Gloucester. Anyone know anything about that?
Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: Richard Goule, of... | The National Archives

Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: R...

The National Archives

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


But even more interesting is a letter which HT wrote to him, thanking him for information on the timing and place of Warbeck's imminent invasion:
20 September 1497  Henry VII to Oliver King, Bishop of Bath and Wells

20 September 1497  Henry VII to Oliver King, Bishop of Bath and Wells

By the Kinge RIGHT reverend father in God, right trusty and welbeloved wee greete yow well, and have received yo...



When Richard IV arrives Oliver King is one of those he declares is loyal to HT (see Wroe).
So where does this put King and Beaumont? King would undoubtedly know that Beaumont was related to Brampton and that Brampton, though abroad, would have a good knowledge of what was going on in diplomatic circles in Europe. Did Beaumont wittingly, or unwittingly, give him information?
As we've said, Beaumont's career is odd. After nearly two decades he decides to become a Prebend, the earliest Taunton in April 1497. All his prebendaries and posts are in the Bath & Wells diocese and he is promoted as Archdeacon of Bath five months' before Perkiin's execution. As Archdeacon of Wells he is followed by Polydore Vergil. And he doesn't seem to have had any particular aim or influence, apart from I recall one inspection. His death is not even noted, apart from later expenses.
Oliver King doesn't get much mention in Wroe but I think he's worthy of a closer look? H

On Friday, 12 October 2018, 18:12:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@...

[] <> wrote:



There are a lot of Lincoln connections here. Interesting too about the Spayne family. I suspect that Spayne is the name of a subsequent husband of Thomas and Margaret's mother rather than her own family name, but it may be helpful in pinning down a location.. As far as I know, women did take their husband's surnames back then.
As for surnames in general use, this article is quite helpful.BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past
BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...


Nico

On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:47:22 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-13 11:53:52
Hilary Jones
Nico sorry to be a nuisance but I can't find the reference for the full copy of Beaumont's will. Could I trouble you for it again? Thanks a million . H
On Saturday, 13 October 2018, 11:48:54 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, yes I was looking for a 'Mr Spayne' second husband.
I might be able to offer you another crumb about the book (sorry Marie!) and I could have found a bishop spy for Doug!
If this is the 1501 French edition I reckon it came to TB through the estate of his Bishop Oliver King, who died in 1503. I have two reasons for thinking this:
1. King had been Edward's secretary specialising in French affairs so was likely to have had an interest in something of this nature.
2. William Cosyn, Dean of Wells and King's nephew was the executor of King's will and that of TB four years' later. He received a pardon from Henry VIII for this. I've no idea why.
I think we should pay close attention to King. After Bosworth he immediately transferred his loyalty to HT saying that God had instructed him to do so (!). He then clearly became a good buddy of HT and just think of all the knowledge he'd have had of the Yorkist court and its people - watch out Stanley! There's also a case in the NA where he complains he's been robbed of plate whilst imprisoned by Richard Duke of Gloucester. Anyone know anything about that?
Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: Richard Goule, of... | The National Archives

Short title: King v Goule. Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk. Defendants: R...

The National Archives

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


But even more interesting is a letter which HT wrote to him, thanking him for information on the timing and place of Warbeck's imminent invasion:
20 September 1497  Henry VII to Oliver King, Bishop of Bath and Wells

20 September 1497  Henry VII to Oliver King, Bishop of Bath and Wells

By the Kinge RIGHT reverend father in God, right trusty and welbeloved wee greete yow well, and have received yo...



When Richard IV arrives Oliver King is one of those he declares is loyal to HT (see Wroe).
So where does this put King and Beaumont? King would undoubtedly know that Beaumont was related to Brampton and that Brampton, though abroad, would have a good knowledge of what was going on in diplomatic circles in Europe. Did Beaumont wittingly, or unwittingly, give him information?
As we've said, Beaumont's career is odd. After nearly two decades he decides to become a Prebend, the earliest Taunton in April 1497. All his prebendaries and posts are in the Bath & Wells diocese and he is promoted as Archdeacon of Bath five months' before Perkiin's execution. As Archdeacon of Wells he is followed by Polydore Vergil. And he doesn't seem to have had any particular aim or influence, apart from I recall one inspection. His death is not even noted, apart from later expenses.
Oliver King doesn't get much mention in Wroe but I think he's worthy of a closer look? H

On Friday, 12 October 2018, 18:12:38 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@...

[] <> wrote:



There are a lot of Lincoln connections here. Interesting too about the Spayne family. I suspect that Spayne is the name of a subsequent husband of Thomas and Margaret's mother rather than her own family name, but it may be helpful in pinning down a location.. As far as I know, women did take their husband's surnames back then.
As for surnames in general use, this article is quite helpful.BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past
BBC - Family History - What's In a Name? Your Link to the Past

Trades, territory, family links - studying surnames tells you about the important things in peoples' lives in ti...


Nico

On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:47:22 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H
On Friday, 12 October 2018, 16:06:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie,
Just when did surnames become general? I've read a lot of history concerning
the medieval period know that often people were denominated as "de" some
town or locality, but I have no idea when the "average" person started using
surnames. I do know surnames were often based on their occupation (smith,
cooper, thatcher), but they were also based on where they lived and it
crossed my mind that this "Peter Walbrick" just might have been the first,
or second or third, of his family to employ that surname.
Which would make it that more difficult to trace his antecedents. Or
wouldn't it?
Anyway, the diggings and delvings you, Hilary and Nico have done still leave
me amazed. Thank you all!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"As regards the name Warbecque, this was the French version of the surname
which was used in Tournai, which was a French-speaking town. The surname
genuinely did exist in Tournai - Perkin's alleged family was real.
I see from googling that the Dutch word for stream is beek, so that would no
doubt be the origin of the second syllable of the surname.
I'm quite sure the name Peter Warbrick is nothing but coincidence. It isn't
even the spelling you would most expect in the late 15th century so I
believe the late 16th C date given for the inscription. In fact, differences
in the spelling of the name, coupled with relative paucity of genealogical
records, probably account for Hilary's failure to find earlier examples of
the Warbrick surname in England. The same sort of hurdle, in fact, that had
historians erroneously claiming that the Simnel surname popped up out of
nowhere.
Dutch and English are very closely related to start with, which is why the
cross-pollination was so easy. There are several similar pairs of
surnames - such as English Barnfield (15C Barnefeld) and Dutch Barneveld,
as it so chanceth."

--
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

2018-10-13 15:55:30
Doug Stamate
Hilary, First off, thanks for the digging, even if nothing's turned up! Now, if I correctly understand the problem we face; what we have is a book on canon law, probably inscribed sometime during the 16th century to someone we can't place? There's no connection with any known Warbricks in the area because the forename doesn't match up with any known ones. However, we do have a manor named Warbrick, owned firstly by the Botelers and then by the Freebodys, with the transfer taking place during the early 1500s, while we have surnames being adopted during the late 1400s/early 1500s. Do we have any idea of when the Peter Warbrick inscription was written? I viewed the link you provided, but I'm sorry to say I couldn't make head nor tails of it! It did cross my mind, however, that where the name is positioned might provide some clue. The other thought that came to mind was that this Peter Warbrick may have been a priest, but not necessarily one that had matriculated at Oxford or Cambridge; particularly if he arrived on the scene after the English Reformation. Or even during it, for that matter. Do we know of any monasteries or abbeys in the area that might have had their libraries dispersed in the 1530s? Regardless of whether Walbrick was a Roman Catholic priest or Protestant one, he still might not be originally from England. I really hope this makes sense! Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, Nico, Marie, I just think we can't afford to neglect anything, even though of course it may later turn out to be a dead end. We have so very little to go on. Actually the Oxford translation is that Thomas Owen gave the book to Peter Warbrick, not the other way round. Now to own a book like this in the fifteenth or sixteenth century you had to have some esteem. 'Warbrick' is not an alumni of Oxford or Cambridge - there's no-one of that surname or anything like that suname. Warbreck manor in Lancashire was passed from the Botelers to the Freebodys in the early 16th century - so there's a logic there. The deed was witnessed by the Stanleys. I have trawled wills, several genealogy sites and there are some Warbricks in Lancs at the end of the sixteenth century, but no Peter. Justice Thomas Owen did have a son called Peter, but that seems to be a dead end. I did even think it could be Marbreck and we have no 'ms'in Owen's writing with which to compare it. I'm just puzzled by who Petri Wabreck is so we can eliminate him. Doug surnames were regularised at the end of the 14th century by Richard II so the 'de' was dropped. Marie, believe me I do trawl - for up to 10 hours a day. We just have a different way of approaching things. Cheers :)
--
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

2018-10-13 16:05:26
Doug Stamate
Nico, FWIW, Wikipedia has Arthur being born sometime between 1465 and 1470 so I don't understand why the reference couldn't be to him. I've got that book on my list of to buys; it appears I'll have to move it higher up! The only thing I have against the idea is that, were there two illegitimate boys during the early 1470s, why haven't we heard anything about the one that wasn't Arthur during that same period? Doug Nico wrote: Hi, The reference to the Lord Bastard is a different one from the Edward V. It comes from The Private Life of Edward IV, which I read last year and have since taken back to the library. Anyway, if I remember rightly, it was in the section about Arthur Plantagenet and it was a record from Edward IV's accounts. If AP was too young to have been that Lord Bastard, who was he? JAH suggested Perkin with the added possibility that he was in England for a while, but could have been taken abroad. This might fit with Ann Wroe's theory about the Binche boy, although I don't think he went into that. Even if illegitimate, Perkin is generally assumed to be Edward's, but imho that portrait has more of a Clarence and Margaret vibe
--
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: [Ric

2018-10-13 16:09:46
Doug Stamate
Hiary wrote: Yes, Doug, I didn't even find any de Walbricks in the fourteenth century. But they could have been peasants. But a peasant wouldn't own a book like that or be given it - well I don't think so ..H Doug here: What about the idea that that peasant was a a priest? Either before or after the Reformation? 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} Re: {Dis

2018-10-13 18:35:31
mariewalsh2003
There is no evidence regarding Arthur until his marriage ( he almost certainly isn't the Master Arthur in Elizabeth of York's household at the time of her death) . The dates of birth suggested in Wikipedia are guesses, presumably based on the supposition that Arthur was the Lord Bastard' of 1477 - and possibly also on JAH's erroneous idea that king's widow' ( the 1465 reference to Thomas Wayte's new wife) might mean a widow who was a King's mistress. You'll recall our discussion about this on the forum and how it meant something else entirely.
To get an idea of his real probable dob you only have to look at the dates of his marriage and career.
Marie

P.s Just for Hilary - are you taking into account that in 14th c Warbrick was Warthebreke or similar? And of course if Peter/ Piers was a priest this may well not have been his birth surname.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-13 22:11:07
mariewalsh2003
Surnames I think started in the 1200s, but for ordinary people could still be quite fluid in the 15thC, so a person could be known by their inherited surname, their trade, place of origin, or all three, and you often see this in indictments. The Warbreck surname site has several instances from the 16th century, all from Lancashire or thereabouts where the name arose, but there are also two Oxford alumni, neither a Peter.

Regarding the date, I see I misread, or misremembered, the second inscription in the book. It went from Owen to Warbrick, not vice versa. It reads ( allowing for the odd letter to be wrong as the resolution is poor):
 Liber Petri Warbricki ex dono Tho. Owen Lincoln. (Peter/ Piers Warbrick's book, by the gift of Thomas Owen of Lincoln).
Now, Thomas Owen was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1562 and died in 1598, so Peter Warbrick must have been given it between those two dates.
Marie

P.S to Nico and Hilary - I have downloaded an image of Thomas Beaumont's will on to my phone and can give a full transcript of the references to the Brampton's if you like - it may possibly be more detailed than the version in Somerset Wills, which will be a summary, but I can't promise. Thomas doesn't mention his books.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 10:04:26
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie - from looking at a Newton will original and the Somerset version the latter do seem to be an abbreviated and simplified version. I was interested in who he might have given his books to and also if there's anything more about William Cosyn (who is covered well by online biographies). H
On Saturday, 13 October 2018, 22:11:11 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Surnames I think started in the 1200s, but for ordinary people could still be quite fluid in the 15thC, so a person could be known by their inherited surname, their trade, place of origin, or all three, and you often see this in indictments. The Warbreck surname site has several instances from the 16th century, all from Lancashire or thereabouts where the name arose, but there are also two Oxford alumni, neither a Peter.

Regarding the date, I see I misread, or misremembered, the second inscription in the book. It went from Owen to Warbrick, not vice versa. It reads ( allowing for the odd letter to be wrong as the resolution is poor):
 Liber Petri Warbricki ex dono Tho. Owen Lincoln. (Peter/ Piers Warbrick's book, by the gift of Thomas Owen of Lincoln).
Now, Thomas Owen was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1562 and died in 1598, so Peter Warbrick must have been given it between those two dates.
Marie

P.S to Nico and Hilary - I have downloaded an image of Thomas Beaumont's will on to my phone and can give a full transcript of the references to the Brampton's if you like - it may possibly be more detailed than the version in Somerset Wills, which will be a summary, but I can't promise. Thomas doesn't mention his books.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 10:08:44
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,

First to say, if I've offended you, I apologise. I didn't actually claim you don't trawl. Quite the reverse - what worries me is that if one trawls really wide things will always get caught in the net that have something in common with one's subject of study, but the chance of any relevant causal connection won't actually be very great.

I do happen to have looked at the Oliver King business for a book I'm working in, though it's not really relevant and will probably end up in an article instead. Again, sorry I can't recall the details but what happened is that King was one of those arrested in the Tower on Friday 13th June, and his goods were seized, as this was the procedure in those days. They all ought to have been returned to him in his release but he claimed that some plate (including candlesticks?) had been sold by Richard's agents to one of the city's elite merchants. I can't recall who claimed what without checking my notes, but the goods seem to have changed hands a couple of times, and King suddenly brought this case against Mayor Hill's widow and executrix Elizabeth in the late 1480s.
If you can wait till next month I can give you the full story. It may be the stuff had been sold legally to settle King's debts but I really would need to check. Sadly, I don't think it was at all uncommon for sequestered goods to go missing - look at the Thomas Cook case. Of course Richard reformed the law the following year so that the goods of those charged with sub-felony offences would not be seized before conviction, though this wouldn't have helped King.
Marie

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

2018-10-14 10:10:26
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie - I've looked at everything beginning with War and Swar (which some soundtex pulls up). Could be foreign of course, it's very Germanic. In fact I did wonder whether Margaret and Thomas could be French as they are so elusive. H


On Saturday, 13 October 2018, 18:35:38 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

There is no evidence regarding Arthur until his marriage ( he almost certainly isn't the Master Arthur in Elizabeth of York's household at the time of her death) . The dates of birth suggested in Wikipedia are guesses, presumably based on the supposition that Arthur was the Lord Bastard' of 1477 - and possibly also on JAH's erroneous idea that king's widow' ( the 1465 reference to Thomas Wayte's new wife) might mean a widow who was a King's mistress. You'll recall our discussion about this on the forum and how it meant something else entirely.
To get an idea of his real probable dob you only have to look at the dates of his marriage and career.
Marie

P.s Just for Hilary - are you taking into account that in 14th c Warbrick was Warthebreke or similar? And of course if Peter/ Piers was a priest this may well not have been his birth surname.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 10:29:22
mariewalsh2003
To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 10:34:07
Hilary Jones
Firstly, you haven't offended me at all Marie, I tend to go where things take me, rather than with a designed outcome to prove something. You're right it can be diverting and I'm even more diverted knowing that Oliver King might have been up to something long before he colluded with HT the king. As Wroe says he was one of the very few friends King Henry had. Sometimes it does pay off though and something on another subject turns up. So John Russhe turned up as John Rasshe. Now who would have guess that variation!
One other thing I'd say about surnames and that is the spelling varied with the dialect. So John Styvecle HS of Huntingdon is actually a cousin of Sir Hugh Stukeley HS of Devon and both are probably cousins of the Stokley Escheators of Staffs who are spelled Stucle by Richard II. That's just one example.Chasing Roger Tocotes is a nightmare, there are so many variations and even when you think you've sorted out the Hamptons and the Hampdens some records muddle them up. Going back to the Warbrick name I've been into the Lancashire section of Ancestry, and the wills and there's nothing. By the time Sir Thomas Owen was around you'd expect to find at least a death record. You can look on familysearch.org for free and that's often as good. I suppose the other place to look is in universities other than Oxbridge abroad or in Scotland?
Thanks again for the stuff on King. I'd like to know more about his relationship with King and Cosyn. It's interesting that the fortunes of TB and Cosyn declined after King's death and why would Cosyn be pardoned for administering their wills. Incidentally he executed another will - that of Thomas Greene - but he is not mentioned in the pardon. H
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:08:47 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

First to say, if I've offended you, I apologise. I didn't actually claim you don't trawl. Quite the reverse - what worries me is that if one trawls really wide things will always get caught in the net that have something in common with one's subject of study, but the chance of any relevant causal connection won't actually be very great.

I do happen to have looked at the Oliver King business for a book I'm working in, though it's not really relevant and will probably end up in an article instead. Again, sorry I can't recall the details but what happened is that King was one of those arrested in the Tower on Friday 13th June, and his goods were seized, as this was the procedure in those days. They all ought to have been returned to him in his release but he claimed that some plate (including candlesticks?) had been sold by Richard's agents to one of the city's elite merchants. I can't recall who claimed what without checking my notes, but the goods seem to have changed hands a couple of times, and King suddenly brought this case against Mayor Hill's widow and executrix Elizabeth in the late 1480s.
If you can wait till next month I can give you the full story. It may be the stuff had been sold legally to settle King's debts but I really would need to check. Sadly, I don't think it was at all uncommon for sequestered goods to go missing - look at the Thomas Cook case. Of course Richard reformed the law the following year so that the goods of those charged with sub-felony offences would not be seized before conviction, though this wouldn't have helped King.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 10:40:45
Hilary Jones
I agree with you on London Marie - both Oliver King and Cosyn come from the merchant class there. I'm pursuing them in case TB was a relative. I can also tell you he wasn't related to Thomas Beaumont the salter - his will is available and he left no children. I must check whether he had a brother. I do think, looking at the dates of appointments, the fortunes of TB were tied to King. He goes nowhere after King's death. Incidentally Cosyn's father was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward.
Thanks so much for the quote. H (I wonder if Cosyn had Brampton's address and if the rings ever got there)
PS Yahoo is particularly difficult recently - I find you can't go back to insert anything which sometimes makes things sound quite terse. So apologies if they do!
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:29:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

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

2018-10-14 10:47:32
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,

English *is* a Germanic language, and medieval forms are often closer to those of our Germanic neighbours than the modern forms - suster for sister, for instance.
If you google Warbreck etymology' you will see the place name is of Norse origin, like many in the North of England. The earliest references to Warbreck/ Warbrick as a surname come from the same area. So there is absolutely no mystery.

Despite the weird coincidence, Peter Warbrick can only be linked to the Warbeck business by what scientists call torturing the evidence' - something one is evidently not supposed to do.
The book is a really great find, for the light it sheds on the life and interests of Lady Brampton's brother, but it won't solve the mystery of the Princes.
BTW as a book I think it continued in demand after the Reformation because canon law wasn't ditched . I don't know much about it, but my understanding is that Anglicans kidded themselves that canon law as practised in England had always been English rather than Roman, and so simply took it over and developed it from there. English canon law texts such as Lyndwood must have been important in cementing that interpretation, I imagine. That is why rabid reformers could still desire a book like this.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 11:18:33
Nicholas Brown
Hilary, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to get back to you yesterday, and thank you, Marie for downloading Thomas Beaumont's will. It would be interesting to see if this one is more detailed. However, for comparison, the link that I used was:

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The link should work, but if not It is in Weavers's edition of Somerset Wills up to 1530. If you are flipping through the book, TB's will is found on page 111.
Nico
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:42:13 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I agree with you on London Marie - both Oliver King and Cosyn come from the merchant class there. I'm pursuing them in case TB was a relative. I can also tell you he wasn't related to Thomas Beaumont the salter - his will is available and he left no children. I must check whether he had a brother. I do think, looking at the dates of appointments, the fortunes of TB were tied to King. He goes nowhere after King's death. Incidentally Cosyn's father was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward.
Thanks so much for the quote. H (I wonder if Cosyn had Brampton's address and if the rings ever got there)
PS Yahoo is particularly difficult recently - I find you can't go back to insert anything which sometimes makes things sound quite terse. So apologies if they do!
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:29:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 11:30:54
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,
Yes thanks. I have the book on my computer at home and have compared wills with the originals in the past.
I really am stuck for a month with only snatched minutes and a single phone to do everything on., do if I sometimes seem frustrated that is why, You can compare what I've written with what is in Weaver. There are six Brampton children, and Maister Edward Brampton seems to be an error for Sir Edward.
Have to go again.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 12:04:25
mariewalsh2003
I had to hand write the passage from the will, then copy from that, and I seem to have misread my xx as xv, so the value of the rings should be 20s, not 15s.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-10-14 12:49:42
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
That is an interesting observation about ceremonies only involving children of around 8 or more. That would coincide with the the traditional intervals of early life, with 0-7 being early childhood. How ironic that you could get married as toddler, but children older than you were to young to take part in the ceremony!

Actually how do you estimate someone's age from a clothing order? Obviously, smallish amounts for small people, but can you pinpoint with any accuracy how tall, old or fat someone is from the amount of cloth? Not just this one, but there has been a lot of speculation about how tall or short some people are, sometimes with some relevance to who they are or why they did what they did (eg. Clarence and his 'short man syndrome,' and the paternity/identity of Edward IV and Perkin.)
As for the Binche boy, it wasn't an argument that I was that convinced by, and like you say, Margaret's courtiers would probably have recognized him if he came back as Perkin. I think the essence of Ann Wroe's argument was that while she was charitable to a lot of children, she was more personally involved with him. Even so, there are other explanations, and the fact in 1485 he would have been around 12, could just mean he left for the next stage of his life.

Of course, not all the gaps in the record are to do with the Princes; some are worth noting, but there are a lot of red herrings.
Nico



On Saturday, 13 October 2018, 11:47:34 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,
I know I said I'd withdraw from this thread, but this is a different topic.
The Lord Bastard reference in Edward IV's account was found by Cora Scofiekd back in the 1920s. It is payment for clothing for The Lord Bastard' to attend the wedding of RoY to Anne Mowbray in Jan 1477. Scofield assumed it meant Arthur Plantagenet, and this assumption was followed by Muriel Byrne, but Arthur's career and reference to other ceremonial occasions suggest Arthur, even if born by this time (which is doubtful) may have been too young to have taken part.
The same difficulty, I think, arises with the Perkin theory. RoY was only 3 1/2, and had to be carried and helped along through the proceedings. You couldn't easily have toddler attendants as well. I know it's done at royal weddings now, but only children of 8 and more have been involved in any 15th C ceremonies I've looked at. One day I should try to look at this doc to see if it indicates the amount of cloth being provided for this individual.
The other question would be whether the Binche Boy ever returned to England - the Binche Accounts might answer that one- or whether he is likely to have been the king's bastard - Ann Wroe had the impression he was being treated at Binche as though of yeoman status, and he is not referred to in those accounts as a bastard. Jean le Saige, the name Margaret gave him, is not a very dignified name for a royal bastard, and indeed Edward had a fool of the same name. Nor was he the only boy she adopted in this way over the course of her life in Burgundy.
I also have a problem with the Binche boy reappearing as PW because he would have been easily recognised by every member of Margaret's household.
Ann Wroe says the Binche Boy disappeared from the records there some time after Bosworth, but I think that when I looked up to find her source it was a surviving set of accounts for Binche that ends in 1485. Work to be done there one day, for sure.
Edward could well have had an older bastard who later died, or who didn't make a great career and so simply isn't known about.
It's intriguing, but I'm always wary of trying to feed every unexplained reference in the records into the story of the Princes and Warbeck. I'd rather simply keep digging in the hope that further information will turn up.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 12:51:36
Nicholas Brown
Thanks so much for all your help. Good luck with the book you are working on. I look forward to reading it when it comes out.
Nico

On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 12:04:28 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I had to hand write the passage from the will, then copy from that, and I seem to have misread my xx as xv, so the value of the rings should be 20s, not 15s.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-10-14 13:13:02
mariewalsh2003
You couldn't get married under 7 according to canon law, but in England at any rate people were interpreting the minimum age as the seventh year - ie six - which scooped in Anne Mowbray, and Edward got a papal dispensation for his son to exchange marriage vows under age.

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

2018-10-14 13:45:12
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie, I'm not that worried about dismissing Warbrick, I'm more interested that it may have led me at least to take more interest in Oliver King and William Stanley.
On the subject of language do you (or Nico) know the origin of the surname Bremonger, as in John Bremonger draper of London? H

On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:47:40 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

English *is* a Germanic language, and medieval forms are often closer to those of our Germanic neighbours than the modern forms - suster for sister, for instance.
If you google Warbreck etymology' you will see the place name is of Norse origin, like many in the North of England. The earliest references to Warbreck/ Warbrick as a surname come from the same area. So there is absolutely no mystery.

Despite the weird coincidence, Peter Warbrick can only be linked to the Warbeck business by what scientists call torturing the evidence' - something one is evidently not supposed to do.
The book is a really great find, for the light it sheds on the life and interests of Lady Brampton's brother, but it won't solve the mystery of the Princes.
BTW as a book I think it continued in demand after the Reformation because canon law wasn't ditched . I don't know much about it, but my understanding is that Anglicans kidded themselves that canon law as practised in England had always been English rather than Roman, and so simply took it over and developed it from there. English canon law texts such as Lyndwood must have been important in cementing that interpretation, I imagine.. That is why rabid reformers could still desire a book like this.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 13:46:10
Hilary Jones
Thanks Nico. It was my fault for forgetting it was in Somerset wills of course. H
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 11:18:37 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to get back to you yesterday, and thank you, Marie for downloading Thomas Beaumont's will. It would be interesting to see if this one is more detailed. However, for comparison, the link that I used was:

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The link should work, but if not It is in Weavers's edition of Somerset Wills up to 1530. If you are flipping through the book, TB's will is found on page 111.
Nico
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:42:13 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I agree with you on London Marie - both Oliver King and Cosyn come from the merchant class there. I'm pursuing them in case TB was a relative. I can also tell you he wasn't related to Thomas Beaumont the salter - his will is available and he left no children. I must check whether he had a brother. I do think, looking at the dates of appointments, the fortunes of TB were tied to King. He goes nowhere after King's death. Incidentally Cosyn's father was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward.
Thanks so much for the quote. H (I wonder if Cosyn had Brampton's address and if the rings ever got there)
PS Yahoo is particularly difficult recently - I find you can't go back to insert anything which sometimes makes things sound quite terse. So apologies if they do!
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 10:29:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

To make it easier to for my to type up, this is the relevant passage in modernised spelling and punctuation, with items separated;-
Item, I bequeath to Master [sic] Edward Brampton an hoop of gold to be made for him.
And to my Lady Brampton, my sister, a ring of gold with a flat diamond.
And I will that mine executors ordain for each of their children, that is to say Sir John Brampton, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane, for each of them a hoop of gold of the value of 15s with this scripture to be made within every of the same hoops - Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde' - these same rings to be made and sent into Portugal unto them by some sure messenger as soon as mine executors can make provision after my death.

I also found a reference to Thomas and Emma Spayne in the Conmon Pleas Rolls for 1500. They were pursuing a guy for debt who lived somewhere around Fleet St - sorry I forgot to write the details down, but I do know that Emma was described in the record as a widow. Thomas's will shows that he was also rector of the parish of St Clements in London, so perhaps we have all been off piste looking for the family origins in the provinces. London is certainly worth homing in on, I think, and Brampton seems to have been in the city a lot so could more easily have met Margaret if she was a Londoner.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 18:13:21
Doug Stamate
Marie,
Am I correct in that the "Peter Warbrick," who received the volume did so
between 1562 and 1598, was living after most people had adopted a surname
but, relatively speaking, not too long after?
Considering the topic of the volume, I'm still leaning towards the volume
possibly having come from some religious establishment suppressed during the
first half of the 16th century and given to "Peter" because of his (Peter's)
profession.
And, even with all the qualifiers, those are still very "iffy" conclusions!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Surnames I think started in the 1200s, but for ordinary people could still
be quite fluid in the 15thC, so a person could be known by their inherited
surname, their trade, place of origin, or all three, and you often see this
in indictments. The Warbreck surname site has several instances from the
16th century, all from Lancashire or thereabouts where the name arose, but
there are also two Oxford alumni, neither a Peter.
Regarding the date, I see I misread, or misremembered, the second
inscription in the book. It went from Owen to Warbrick, not vice versa. It
reads ( allowing for the odd letter to be wrong as the resolution is poor):
 Liber Petri Warbricki ex dono Tho. Owen Lincoln. (Peter/ Piers Warbrick's
book, by the gift of Thomas Owen of Lincoln).
Now, Thomas Owen was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1562 and died in 1598, so
Peter Warbrick must have been given it between those two dates.
Marie
P.S to Nico and Hilary - I have downloaded an image of Thomas Beaumont's
will on to my phone and can give a full transcript of the references to the
Brampton's if you like - it may possibly be more detailed than the version
in Somerset Wills, which will be a summary, but I can't promise. Thomas
doesn't mention his books."



--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-14 21:55:07
mariewalsh2003
Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move 30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing it with the town of one's birth.

Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 10:20:40
Hilary Jones
If I can help a bit on this Doug the Judge Thomas Owen whom the university think gave the book to Warbrick lived from 1542 to 1598 and came from Shrewsbury. The other two owners are William Fleetwood, Recorder of London (1538-1616) - he's from Lancashire and happens to be a descendant of the Princes' nurse and Judge Edmund Anderson, fervent Protestant (1530 - 1605) from Lincolnshire. So there would seem to be quite a gap between Beaumont's ownership and the rest. Did it stay at Bath with William Cosyn his executor who didn't die till 1525? Don't know why he would give it to Oxford - he and Oliver King were Cambridge men. H
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 21:55:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move 30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing it with the town of one's birth.

Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 10:35:34
Hilary Jones
Hi, whilst looking for the will of William Cosyn I came across his name in the google book 'The Award of William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln' I can't paste it but you can get it online. On page 48 it says he compiled a book at Bath & Wells in 1506 (not ours) which he got from his Prebend of Bedford which is in the diocese of - Lincoln. So firstly, WC seems to have been a bit of a collector of books and secondly 'Lincoln' might have been the diocese of Lincoln, not Lincoln College Oxford and thus Thomas Owen might not have been the judge. Have a look and see what you think. H

On Monday, 15 October 2018, 10:23:10 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

If I can help a bit on this Doug the Judge Thomas Owen whom the university think gave the book to Warbrick lived from 1542 to 1598 and came from Shrewsbury. The other two owners are William Fleetwood, Recorder of London (1538-1616) - he's from Lancashire and happens to be a descendant of the Princes' nurse and Judge Edmund Anderson, fervent Protestant (1530 - 1605) from Lincolnshire. So there would seem to be quite a gap between Beaumont's ownership and the rest. Did it stay at Bath with William Cosyn his executor who didn't die till 1525? Don't know why he would give it to Oxford - he and Oliver King were Cambridge men. H
On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 21:55:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move 30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing it with the town of one's birth.

Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-10-15 12:00:12
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Marie.

On Sunday, 14 October 2018, 13:13:09 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

You couldn't get married under 7 according to canon law, but in England at any rate people were interpreting the minimum age as the seventh year - ie six - which scooped in Anne Mowbray, and Edward got a papal dispensation for his son to exchange marriage vows under age.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 12:48:43
mariewalsh2003
Just to say not everybody who owned a book signed their name in it, Thomas Owen didn't sign it, after all.

Also that Lincoln is unlikely to refer to the diocese as it was a very big diocese so fairly meaningless as an address. I see no reason to doubt the Christ Church Identification of Thomas Owen, and we don't need to assume that the book was given to Oxford uni so early as this would be a ref to Lincoln's Inn in London.

The point about the date range I gave Doug for the handover to Warbrick is that it is the period during which Owen belonged to Lincoln's Inn.

I would say Christ Church has taken the current information on the book's ownership as far as it will reasonably go.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 13:22:59
Hilary Jones
Ah, Lincoln's Inn, not Lincoln College Oxford which is how I read the write-up. Now that makes sense!
I've had a look again at the wills of Beaumont and Oliver King, including the original version of Beaumont's. I do wonder if they were related. TB is executor for King's will, along with King's sister and nephew and TB's will does include special prayers for King. Both leave bequests to John Paulet and Mary his wife, so that might also give us a link. Neither mention books. I haven't yet been able to find Cosyn's will.
FWIW I think Emme Spayne may have been the wife of Robert Spayne, scrivener (and of at least 3 others). If that's the case she may be Emme Bremonger, daughter of John Bremonger, citizen and draper of London. Is it possible that Bremonger could also have been Jewish and that in marrying Margaret Beaumont Brampton had gone back to his roots? The husbands are all merchants belonging to the parish of St Mary atte Hill. One also gets the impression from his will that TB was pretty rich - and some of the riches had been given to him by his mother. H
On Monday, 15 October 2018, 12:56:38 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Just to say not everybody who owned a book signed their name in it, Thomas Owen didn't sign it, after all.

Also that Lincoln is unlikely to refer to the diocese as it was a very big diocese so fairly meaningless as an address. I see no reason to doubt the Christ Church Identification of Thomas Owen, and we don't need to assume that the book was given to Oxford uni so early as this would be a ref to Lincoln's Inn in London.

The point about the date range I gave Doug for the handover to Warbrick is that it is the period during which Owen belonged to Lincoln's Inn.

I would say Christ Church has taken the current information on the book's ownership as far as it will reasonably go.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 14:49:01
Hilary Jones
Marie, for my sins having gone through the Lincoln's Inn Register, could it be Peter Warburton, who was admitted in 1562, just before Owen? I can't blow it up enough to verify. Sorry about Lincoln's Inn, how stupid of me not to notice. Definitely no Warbricks but the Warburtons were local to Owen.
However, just before TB's death a John Brampton is admitted to Lincoln's Inn. Now the John Brampton of Norfolk would have been over 50 by then and his descendants don't feature a John. So yet another hare ........?! H
On Monday, 15 October 2018, 12:56:38 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Just to say not everybody who owned a book signed their name in it, Thomas Owen didn't sign it, after all.

Also that Lincoln is unlikely to refer to the diocese as it was a very big diocese so fairly meaningless as an address. I see no reason to doubt the Christ Church Identification of Thomas Owen, and we don't need to assume that the book was given to Oxford uni so early as this would be a ref to Lincoln's Inn in London.

The point about the date range I gave Doug for the handover to Warbrick is that it is the period during which Owen belonged to Lincoln's Inn.

I would say Christ Church has taken the current information on the book's ownership as far as it will reasonably go.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 15:45:03
Doug Stamate
Marie,
Thanks for filling in gaps I had about just when surnames became more
general. I knew about the methods used in their adoption, but not the time
frame.
FWIW, I think I'll keep my idea that "Peter Warbrick" may have been a cleric
or at least associated with the church in some manner.
Subject to change with the receipt of further information, of course!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Yes you are correct regarding the period when Peter Warbrick received the
book.
Everyone had had surnames for quite a long time, but for ordinary folk they
weren't necessarily fixed in the 1400s - John Johnson of Liitletown might
grow up to become a tailor and become known as John Tailor, or he might move
30 miles away to Bigtown and find himself identified there as John
Littletown. By the late 1500s perhaps surnames were more settled, but I don't
know 16thc sources well enough to be sure. There was, of course, also the
priestly practice of divesting oneself of one's family surname and replacing
it with the town of one's birth.
Your theory about the religious house may well be correct, but we really don't
know because Thomas Beaumont didn't mention his books in his will."



--
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: [Ric

2018-10-15 16:01:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, In regards to that pardon Cosyn received: could it have been for some legal error he committed? If the pardon was for some error committed in the administration of the will/s, that leads me to think Cosyn interpreted something in the will/s in a manner HVII didn't like. Perhaps it's something as simple as Cosyn searching too hard for a beneficiary, finding one and thus depriving Henry of some addition to his coffers? Also, I wasn't certain about exactly who is referred to in your phrase for administering their wills. I am correct in presuming it refers to King and Beaumont, aren't I? Doug Hilary wrote: Firstly, you haven't offended me at all Marie, I tend to go where things take me, rather than with a designed outcome to prove something. You're right it can be diverting and I'm even more diverted knowing that Oliver King might have been up to something long before he colluded with HT the king. As Wroe says he was one of the very few friends King Henry had. Sometimes it does pay off though and something on another subject turns up. So John Russhe turned up as John Rasshe. Now who would have guess that variation! One other thing I'd say about surnames and that is the spelling varied with the dialect. So John Styvecle HS of Huntingdon is actually a cousin of Sir Hugh Stukeley HS of Devon and both are probably cousins of the Stokley Escheators of Staffs who are spelled Stucle by Richard II. That's just one example.Chasing Roger Tocotes is a nightmare, there are so many variations and even when you think you've sorted out the Hamptons and the Hampdens some records muddle them up. Going back to the Warbrick name I've been into the Lancashire section of Ancestry, and the wills and there's nothing. By the time Sir Thomas Owen was around you'd expect to find at least a decent record. You can look on familysearch.org for free and that's often as good. I suppose the other place to look is in universities other than Oxbridge abroad or in Scotland? Thanks again for the stuff on King. I'd like to know more about his relationship with King and Cosyn. It's interesting that the fortunes of TB and Cosyn declined after King's death and why would Cosyn be pardoned for administering their wills. Incidentally he executed another will - that of Thomas Greene - but he is not mentioned in the pardon.
--
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: [Ric

2018-10-15 16:10:58
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Well, if making bequests is anything to go by, then it would appear that our Peter Warbrick was, in some way or another, either associated with Oxford or perhaps had a close acquaintance/friend who was. Wasn't Cambridge becoming known for its' rather Puritan views at the time of the bequest? Perhaps he felt Oxford would thus be a better home for the book? Doug Hilary wrote: If I can help a bit on this Doug the Judge Thomas Owen whom the university think gave the book to Warbrick lived from 1542 to 1598 and came from Shrewsbury. The other two owners are William Fleetwood, Recorder of London (1538-1616) - he's from Lancashire and happens to be a descendant of the Princes' nurse and Judge Edmund Anderson, fervent Protestant (1530 - 1605) from Lincolnshire. So there would seem to be quite a gap between Beaumont's ownership and the rest. Did it stay at Bath with William Cosyn his executor who didn't die till 1525? Don't know why he would give it to Oxford - he and Oliver King were Cambridge men.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 17:44:25
mariewalsh2003
I really don't think it's Warburton, but it would be nice if they had put up a better copy. The lack of focus is probably deliberate so people still have to pay for readable copies.
The Warburtons were lords of Arley in N Cheshire, just a couple of mikes from where I live. Piers was their trademark name - a Sir Piers W was the lord at the time of Bosworth, and the person William Stanley wrote to about Olde Dyk'
It's very possible that this Piers or Peter Warbrick died young, of course, without having been able to establish a career.
To be honest, I'm not really concerned to identify him. Thomas Beaumont had no control over who owned his book decades after his death, after all.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 17:47:53
mariewalsh2003
PS. Warbrick identifies Thomas Owen as being of Lincoln's Inn, but not himself, unless that Lincoln.' is meant to cover them both.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-15 18:01:52
mariewalsh2003
Bremonger means brew-monger - it's just an old English trade name.

I saw rRobert Spayne the London scrivener in the Common Pleas cases and wondered if he could be the late lamented husband of Emme, but unfortunately he was never suing alongside a wife.
Where does the info on Emme Bremonger come from?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-10-16 09:51:10
Hilary Jones
I honestly don't know Doug. The wills were administered in 1503 and 1507 but the pardon was given by Henry VIII - i.e. some time after 1509. And yes, Beaumont and King. H
On Monday, 15 October 2018, 16:02:40 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In regards to that pardon Cosyn received: could it have been for some legal error he committed? If the pardon was for some error committed in the administration of the will/s, that leads me to think Cosyn interpreted something in the will/s in a manner HVII didn't like. Perhaps it's something as simple as Cosyn searching too hard for a beneficiary, finding one and thus depriving Henry of some addition to his coffers? Also, I wasn't certain about exactly who is referred to in your phrase for administering their wills. I am correct in presuming it refers to King and Beaumont, aren't I? Doug Hilary wrote: Firstly, you haven't offended me at all Marie, I tend to go where things take me, rather than with a designed outcome to prove something. You're right it can be diverting and I'm even more diverted knowing that Oliver King might have been up to something long before he colluded with HT the king. As Wroe says he was one of the very few friends King Henry had. Sometimes it does pay off though and something on another subject turns up. So John Russhe turned up as John Rasshe. Now who would have guess that variation! One other thing I'd say about surnames and that is the spelling varied with the dialect. So John Styvecle HS of Huntingdon is actually a cousin of Sir Hugh Stukeley HS of Devon and both are probably cousins of the Stokley Escheators of Staffs who are spelled Stucle by Richard II. That's just one example.Chasing Roger Tocotes is a nightmare, there are so many variations and even when you think you've sorted out the Hamptons and the Hampdens some records muddle them up. Going back to the Warbrick name I've been into the Lancashire section of Ancestry, and the wills and there's nothing. By the time Sir Thomas Owen was around you'd expect to find at least a decent record. You can look on familysearch.org for free and that's often as good. I suppose the other place to look is in universities other than Oxbridge abroad or in Scotland? Thanks again for the stuff on King. I'd like to know more about his relationship with King and Cosyn. It's interesting that the fortunes of TB and Cosyn declined after King's death and why would Cosyn be pardoned for administering their wills. Incidentally he executed another will - that of Thomas Greene - but he is not mentioned in the pardon.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 10:17:27
Hilary Jones
Emme appears in a lot of cases Marie. She must have been married to the following:
Unknown BeaumontRobert Stone (there are inheritance challenges from his aunts)John Poliver (by whom she had a daughter Joanna who married Sir John Gaynsford)John Petit (who was alive in the 1490s)We don't know when Spayne died; I can't find a will
Here is the link to Bremonger:
C 1/106/25Description: Short title: Polyver v Wilde.
Plaintiffs: John Polyver and Emma, his wife, daughter of John Bramonger, citizen and draper of London, deceased.
Defendants: William Wilde, clerk, William Bray, Herry Wodecok, and Robert Spayne, feoffees to uses, and Hugh, son of the said John Bramonger, priest.
Subject: Tenements in Minchin Lane, St Dunstan's in the East, and St Mary at Hill; and at Gravesend, under the will of the said John Bramonger.
London, Kent.
5 documents
Date: 1486-1493Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Bremonger had four other children - Hugh (priest), Thomas, Joanna and John. His wife was called Johanna. He died in 1493. He's another one that pops out of nowhere and I can find no trace of the children later or him before. I've looked at two other Spayne wills, but they make no mention of Robert. One Richard is from Luton and has a son Bernard and the other John is childless.
These people are centred round the parish of St Mary atte Hill and are merchants. I'm pretty sure William Bray (or a Bray) features in a deed with Robert Cosyn. I think more and more that there is a link between King/Cosyn and TB. King's father was a merchant, Robert Cosyn was one before becoming Keeper of the wardrobe. Like you, I would like something which says that Emme was Spayne's wife, but Emma isn't a particularly common name at this time, and she appears in several deeds which also feature him. She would also have been pretty wealthy having had all those merchant husbands. H


On Monday, 15 October 2018, 18:04:04 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Bremonger means brew-monger - it's just an old English trade name.

I saw rRobert Spayne the London scrivener in the Common Pleas cases and wondered if he could be the late lamented husband of Emme, but unfortunately he was never suing alongside a wife.
Where does the info on Emme Bremonger come from?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 11:09:17
mariewalsh2003
Hi zzHilsry,
I don't have time to look at these in detail, but are you saying you have:
1) proof that Rmmd Bremonger was married to John Polyver at some point between 1486 and 1493;
2) evidence short of proof that in the 1490s she was married to Robert Stone;
3) surmise that she was the Emme also married to Mr Beaumont and Robert Spayne, on the grounds that Spayne was a feoffee in the Polyver case?

I don't think we can assume this, not least because:-
1) we know that by 1500 she was the widow of one Spayne (bear in mind we haven't identified her Spayne husband yet - it might not have been Robert at all); squeezing in Robert Stone therefore doesn't work at all well.
2) none of the surnames in this scenario apart from Spayne appears in Thomas Beaumont's will
3) Emma was not one of the commonest names but it was by no means uncommon.

People remembered in Thomas's will (apart from obvious clerical contacts and his servants) include:
Robert Tygo ( who was left a gilt cup with a tiger in the bottom which had belonged to his father);
John Warforde;
Agnes Reynyon and her sister Margery (and a Richard Reynyon was named as an executor);
John Tonyngton;
John Paulet and his wife.
Another executor was Thomas Grene.

We need to remember there is no complete database of inhabitants for the 15th C as there is for more recent periods. People who were law-abiding and not litigious can be mighty hard, if not impossible, to find below a certain social level.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 12:39:39
Hilary Jones
Some interesting names on this including John Petit, William Cosyn, John Peche
The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales

The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales

This book proposes that Jews were present in England in substantial numbers from the Roman Conquest forward. Ind...


If the right page doesn't come up it's Appendix C. H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 10:37:27 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Emme appears in a lot of cases Marie. She must have been married to the following:
Unknown BeaumontRobert Stone (there are inheritance challenges from his aunts)John Poliver (by whom she had a daughter Joanna who married Sir John Gaynsford)John Petit (who was alive in the 1490s)We don't know when Spayne died; I can't find a will
Here is the link to Bremonger:
C 1/106/25Description: Short title: Polyver v Wilde.
Plaintiffs: John Polyver and Emma, his wife, daughter of John Bramonger, citizen and draper of London, deceased.
Defendants: William Wilde, clerk, William Bray, Herry Wodecok, and Robert Spayne, feoffees to uses, and Hugh, son of the said John Bramonger, priest.
Subject: Tenements in Minchin Lane, St Dunstan's in the East, and St Mary at Hill; and at Gravesend, under the will of the said John Bramonger.
London, Kent.
5 documents
Date: 1486-1493Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Bremonger had four other children - Hugh (priest), Thomas, Joanna and John. His wife was called Johanna. He died in 1493. He's another one that pops out of nowhere and I can find no trace of the children later or him before. I've looked at two other Spayne wills, but they make no mention of Robert. One Richard is from Luton and has a son Bernard and the other John is childless.
These people are centred round the parish of St Mary atte Hill and are merchants. I'm pretty sure William Bray (or a Bray) features in a deed with Robert Cosyn. I think more and more that there is a link between King/Cosyn and TB. King's father was a merchant, Robert Cosyn was one before becoming Keeper of the wardrobe. Like you, I would like something which says that Emme was Spayne's wife, but Emma isn't a particularly common name at this time, and she appears in several deeds which also feature him. She would also have been pretty wealthy having had all those merchant husbands. H


On Monday, 15 October 2018, 18:04:04 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Bremonger means brew-monger - it's just an old English trade name.

I saw rRobert Spayne the London scrivener in the Common Pleas cases and wondered if he could be the late lamented husband of Emme, but unfortunately he was never suing alongside a wife.
Where does the info on Emme Bremonger come from?
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 13:19:12
Hilary Jones
I'm trying to reply but Yahoo says I'm sending malicious messages! Ill try again later. H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 11:09:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi zzHilsry,
I don't have time to look at these in detail, but are you saying you have:
1) proof that Rmmd Bremonger was married to John Polyver at some point between 1486 and 1493;
2) evidence short of proof that in the 1490s she was married to Robert Stone;
3) surmise that she was the Emme also married to Mr Beaumont and Robert Spayne, on the grounds that Spayne was a feoffee in the Polyver case?

I don't think we can assume this, not least because:-
1) we know that by 1500 she was the widow of one Spayne (bear in mind we haven't identified her Spayne husband yet - it might not have been Robert at all); squeezing in Robert Stone therefore doesn't work at all well.
2) none of the surnames in this scenario apart from Spayne appears in Thomas Beaumont's will
3) Emma was not one of the commonest names but it was by no means uncommon.

People remembered in Thomas's will (apart from obvious clerical contacts and his servants) include:
Robert Tygo ( who was left a gilt cup with a tiger in the bottom which had belonged to his father);
John Warforde;
Agnes Reynyon and her sister Margery (and a Richard Reynyon was named as an executor);
John Tonyngton;
John Paulet and his wife.
Another executor was Thomas Grene.

We need to remember there is no complete database of inhabitants for the 15th C as there is for more recent periods. People who were law-abiding and not litigious can be mighty hard, if not impossible, to find below a certain social level.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 13:40:08
hjnatdat
I'll have a go from here
Marie, here are a couple:
1) I sent you proof and :
C 1/218/16Description: Short title: Polyver v Wodecok.Plaintiffs: Emme Polyver, widow, daughter and heir of John Bramanger, citizen and draper of London.
Defendants: Henry Wodecok, feoffee to uses.
Subject: Messuages and land in the parish of St Dunstan in the East.
London.
SFP.
2 documents
Date: 1493-1500


And:
C 1/54/312Description: Short title: Spayne v Gulle.Plaintiffs: Robert Spayne, scrivener, and others, executors of Robert Stone, late citizen and mercer of London, and John Petyte and Emma his wife, executrix and previously the wife of the said Robert.
Defendants: John Gulle, clerk, feoffee to uses.
Subject: Lands in Styfford and South Wokendon. Essex

There are other cases too where they all appear.
Spayne of course crops up in the other Poliver one and in theory there could be two or even three Emmas. There are about two other Emmas in London at this time worthy of investigation but with no links to a Spayne. BTW Poliver is an ironmonger and Petit a goldsmith
The Roynyons/Reynyons are from Somerset and of course the Paulets are also from the West Country - still to be traced. In the meantime I have traced Oliver King's father. He was John King, a London Tailor, whose widow married Richard Nedham Sheriff of London, another member of the Mercers' Company. H

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 14:10:26
Hilary Jones
I'll try and do it in bits. I think Agnes Roynon is the daughter of William Roynon (died 1511 Somerset will where she's named). He had a wife called Margaret so it's quite likely she had a daughter called Margery who is gone by the time WR dies. They come from Stillington's old stamping ground of Compton Martin and Eastharptree. So they could be benefactors of the cathedral. Richard Roynon appears in a few wills and could be a cleric?
The will also mentions Mathew Cosyn and Robert Cosyn his son?
I've sent you quotes of proof of what you asked - if they don't come through I'll send them in bits. This Emma's people wouldn't be mentioned in TB's will because they are all dead. So we know that Emma Bremonger was the wife of Robert Stone, John Poliver and John Petit. We know Stone died in 1476, Poliver in about 1493 and Petit we don't know. Robert Spayne is the common factor in all these transactions.
I also found the father of Oliver King - John King a tailor who died in the 1450s and whose widow married Richard Nedham, another mercer, Sheriff of London. King had two brothers, Hugh and Alexander, the latter was a priest also. Thare are about 3 other Emmas extant in London at this time so they need looking at. There is no Spayne mentioned in any of their dealings.
Hope this helps.. H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 11:09:21 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi zzHilsry,
I don't have time to look at these in detail, but are you saying you have:
1) proof that Rmmd Bremonger was married to John Polyver at some point between 1486 and 1493;
2) evidence short of proof that in the 1490s she was married to Robert Stone;
3) surmise that she was the Emme also married to Mr Beaumont and Robert Spayne, on the grounds that Spayne was a feoffee in the Polyver case?

I don't think we can assume this, not least because:-
1) we know that by 1500 she was the widow of one Spayne (bear in mind we haven't identified her Spayne husband yet - it might not have been Robert at all); squeezing in Robert Stone therefore doesn't work at all well.
2) none of the surnames in this scenario apart from Spayne appears in Thomas Beaumont's will
3) Emma was not one of the commonest names but it was by no means uncommon.

People remembered in Thomas's will (apart from obvious clerical contacts and his servants) include:
Robert Tygo ( who was left a gilt cup with a tiger in the bottom which had belonged to his father);
John Warforde;
Agnes Reynyon and her sister Margery (and a Richard Reynyon was named as an executor);
John Tonyngton;
John Paulet and his wife.
Another executor was Thomas Grene.

We need to remember there is no complete database of inhabitants for the 15th C as there is for more recent periods. People who were law-abiding and not litigious can be mighty hard, if not impossible, to find below a certain social level.

Marie

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

2018-10-16 15:57:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Well, that is odd, isn't it? So, we have Cosyn administering the wills of Beaumont and King during the reign of Henry VII and then being pardoned for doing so during the next reign, that of Henry VIII, and before Cosyn himself died in 1525. I don't suppose we can narrow the date of the pardon down any more, can we? It's likely not related, but weren't a couple of Henry VII's advisors, Empson and Dudley, executed early in his son's reign? Is King known to have been associated with them? Otherwise, I'm stumped! Doug Hilary wrote: I honestly don't know Doug. The wills were administered in 1503 and 1507 but the pardon was given by Henry VIII - i.e. some time after 1509. And yes, Beaumont and King.
--
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

2018-10-16 16:26:14
mariewalsh2003
It's not at all unusual for disputes to arise over the administration of a will, and my guess is that there mah have been some issue with Cosyn's handling of these wills and he had maybe been taken to court over it. Also a lot of pardons were issued at the start of Henry VIII's reign, and people would avail to be on the safe side. In fact, a list of names of people who couldn't have pardons was drawn up.
Whether Beaumont and King were close before Beaumont's appointment as Archdeacon of Bath, I don't know. You'd expect a bishop and his long-standing top cathedral clergy to form a close relationship, wouldn't you?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 16:52:41
mariewalsh2003
Sorry Hilary but I am bewildered by this proof'.

I have also looked at TNA catalogue, and didn't come up with the necessary link.

What we have, no?, is:
1) An Emme daughter of John and Johanne Bremonger who during the period 1493 to 1500 appears as the wife of London ironmonger John Polyver or Polifever;
2) An Emme who appears during the period 1475 to 1485 as the wife of John Petyte and widow of Robert Stone. Robert Spayne the scrivener had been one of Stone's executors.

We have absolutely nothing that l have seen to indicate that even these two were the same person. I very much doubt they were. And we have no documents at all indicating that either was ever married to a Beamonde or a Spayne. A further marriage to Robert Spayne for Emma Bremonger would seem almost impossible as Mr Spayne was dead by 1500.

It absolutely can't be assumed that everyone who existed will turn up in the records, still less easily available online catalogued ones. This is particularly true of women. Had it not been for the Chancery cases you would not have found Emma Bremonger and Emme Stone-Petyte.

Please tell me if I've missed something.

PS If you want another of life's little coincidences, the old lady who lived three doors up from us when I was a child was called Em Pettit.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 17:55:56
ricard1an
Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-16 21:53:43
Nicholas Brown
Hilary, that is an interesting find about Emma Bremonger and Spayne. St. Clement's Church in Eastcheap, Thomas Beaumont's old parish just slightly Northwest of St. Mary at Hill, where these people in the court case lived. The reference to Kent also drew my attention, because when I looked up the name 'Spayne' a lot of the hits were in Kent.
I have read excerpts from that book the Early Jews and Muslims of England, and found it quite intriguing, although I never got around actually ordering the book. I would have assumed that Peche/Pecche was an occupational surname for a fisherman or fishmonger, and I wouldn't have thought the other names seemed particularly Jewish, but there must be an argument for it that you can't see in the online edition. Another proposed meaning for Peche is sin/sinner in French; perhaps that is that is some reference to the family being Jewish, not necessarily sinful, but not fully accepted by the Christian community. However, if it was anti-semitic slur, I can't imagine the family continuing to use it. If Emma's family or the Peches were Jewish, I would have thought they must have converted several generations before Brampton arrived. It is unfortunate the the medieval Jewish community in England is so under-researched, and probably underestimated. After the conquest, many prominent families may have had Jewish origins, as Normandy was a centre of medieval Jewish culture. It would be fascinating if there was a crypto Jewish community that Brampton was linked to through the Pecches and Margaret Beaumont. I think Brampton also - publicly at least - would have remained Christian, as otherwise his royal mentors in both England and Portugal would have been displeased.
My guess is that Thomas and Margaret's family were London merchants, but perhaps with some connection to the South West Beaumonts. There are indication of some wealth from the jewellery listed in the will. As for the Pecches, there was another family in Dorset. I don't know if they were related to the Lullingstone group.
Another thing I noticed about Thomas Beaumont is that he was promoted just after the Ralph Wilford affair. Unfortunately, so little is known about that episode, but again the Wilford family were London merchants. I think Wilford's father was said to have been a cordwainer from around Bishopsgate - not too far from this group. Could Thomas Beaumont have given information about this?
I was also wondering if William Bray was related to Reggie.

Nico


On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 17:57:24 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-17 10:39:56
Hilary Jones
Marie, I think the nub of this is that in the period we're dealing with it's going to be very difficult to get absolute proofs. This is the whether history is a science or an art. Absolute proofs (unless they're MDNA) are going to be scarce; we're not going to find 'that' letter which says where the princes were. So one has also to look at probabilities and that is the art part in the discipline of history. You can even have eye witness accounts of the same event which are totally different, it's up to us to chose which is likely to be most correct.
Now, as I said earlier, I have a sort of police procedural board in my head. So suspects go on it and stay there until they have been totally eliminated, it doesn't mean I'm going to declare to the world that I'm right.
On my board I still have King, Cosyn and Beaumont either as relatives (which King and Cosyn were) or as members of the same community in London - two of them certainly have links to the Drapers/Mercers guild - the Mercers paid for King and his siblings when his parents died. I agree with Nico about Kent connections too.
Yes we have no proof that Emma Bramonger married Robert Spayne but TB's mother was a rich woman - look at her gifts to him. Also Thomas Beaumont was quite a wealthy bloke, look at his bequests, silver, gold rubies and money. Emme Petyt had been married to John Petyt a goldmsith of possibly Jewish descent. I think 'our' Emma would have been on the radar, as were many wealthy merchant widows during this period. And this was a period when the turnover of spouses could be high, for start there was the sweating sickness. Johanna Poliver, Emme's daughter, was the third of John Gaynsford's four wives. So this group stay on the board till disproved.
Finally, we haven't mentioned this but merchants' London was King Edward's haunt. He knew these people - and their wives. He could have spotted Margaret Beaumont on his trips out with Hastings.
That's my case for the defence!
When you get home would you be prepared to look at the will of Thomas Beaumont the London salter who died in 1457? I've got a copy. It's in Latin and pretty long and pretty dense because of his religious bequests. I might just have missed the mention of someone important there. I hope I have! H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 16:53:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry Hilary but I am bewildered by this proof'.

I have also looked at TNA catalogue, and didn't come up with the necessary link.

What we have, no?, is:
1) An Emme daughter of John and Johanne Bremonger who during the period 1493 to 1500 appears as the wife of London ironmonger John Polyver or Polifever;
2) An Emme who appears during the period 1475 to 1485 as the wife of John Petyte and widow of Robert Stone. Robert Spayne the scrivener had been one of Stone's executors.

We have absolutely nothing that l have seen to indicate that even these two were the same person. I very much doubt they were. And we have no documents at all indicating that either was ever married to a Beamonde or a Spayne. A further marriage to Robert Spayne for Emma Bremonger would seem almost impossible as Mr Spayne was dead by 1500.

It absolutely can't be assumed that everyone who existed will turn up in the records, still less easily available online catalogued ones. This is particularly true of women. Had it not been for the Chancery cases you would not have found Emma Bremonger and Emme Stone-Petyte.

Please tell me if I've missed something.

PS If you want another of life's little coincidences, the old lady who lived three doors up from us when I was a child was called Em Pettit.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-17 10:46:40
Hilary Jones
I'm off to look up Ralph Wilford!
I wasn't sure about the book, some of the names in it must have been Jewish converts hundreds of years' before. In fact I would say that an awful lot of them look French, like Peche (I thought the same as you)
If it was later I would almost have thought a lot of them were Hugenots - i.e.members of a French community in London. That's why I asked about Bremonger, which is also spelled Braymanger. Same with Petit. Wasn't there a Petit John executed as part of the Warbeck affair? I'll also have a look at the Gaynsford connection; they are well documented and some are from Kent. Sometimes you can find or discount things through the backdoor. H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 21:58:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, that is an interesting find about Emma Bremonger and Spayne. St. Clement's Church in Eastcheap, Thomas Beaumont's old parish just slightly Northwest of St. Mary at Hill, where these people in the court case lived. The reference to Kent also drew my attention, because when I looked up the name 'Spayne' a lot of the hits were in Kent.
I have read excerpts from that book the Early Jews and Muslims of England, and found it quite intriguing, although I never got around actually ordering the book. I would have assumed that Peche/Pecche was an occupational surname for a fisherman or fishmonger, and I wouldn't have thought the other names seemed particularly Jewish, but there must be an argument for it that you can't see in the online edition. Another proposed meaning for Peche is sin/sinner in French; perhaps that is that is some reference to the family being Jewish, not necessarily sinful, but not fully accepted by the Christian community. However, if it was anti-semitic slur, I can't imagine the family continuing to use it. If Emma's family or the Peches were Jewish, I would have thought they must have converted several generations before Brampton arrived. It is unfortunate the the medieval Jewish community in England is so under-researched, and probably underestimated. After the conquest, many prominent families may have had Jewish origins, as Normandy was a centre of medieval Jewish culture. It would be fascinating if there was a crypto Jewish community that Brampton was linked to through the Pecches and Margaret Beaumont. I think Brampton also - publicly at least - would have remained Christian, as otherwise his royal mentors in both England and Portugal would have been displeased.
My guess is that Thomas and Margaret's family were London merchants, but perhaps with some connection to the South West Beaumonts. There are indication of some wealth from the jewellery listed in the will. As for the Pecches, there was another family in Dorset. I don't know if they were related to the Lullingstone group.
Another thing I noticed about Thomas Beaumont is that he was promoted just after the Ralph Wilford affair. Unfortunately, so little is known about that episode, but again the Wilford family were London merchants. I think Wilford's father was said to have been a cordwainer from around Bishopsgate - not too far from this group. Could Thomas Beaumont have given information about this?
I was also wondering if William Bray was related to Reggie.

Nico


On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 17:57:24 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-17 10:47:02
Hilary Jones
Onto that too! H
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018, 17:57:23 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Could William Bray have a connection with Reginald Bray? Just a thought.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-17 12:28:25
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,

To be fair, you talked about having given me the proofs and of that Emme Bremonger must have married all these people.

I don't at all see why we should assume Petit to have been of Jewish descent. The book says it is making assumptions based on trade. But no way, for instance, were all goldsmiths of Jewish descent. There are some obvious surnames of Jewish origin, I know, such as Abrams, Isaacs, etc, but I suspect this book has been far too lax in its criteria.

No,we rarely get proof but that doesn't mean we can pretend to proof that isn't there or give up on the search without combing every possible source. Research takes a very long time.

For me I'm afraid your scenario doesn't work well even as an hypothesis - the dates don't fit for Emme Bramonger, and we have nothing at all to link her to the other Emme or to Thomas's old mum. I stand to be proved wrong, of course, but then it will be because it has been proved.

Have you considered that TB might have acquired his wealth as a result of his career? Perhaps a better clue to his family wealth would be the coral rosary and muskball of unstated material which his mother had once given to him and which he returned to her in his will.
Even if the family was wealthy it wouldn't prove a thing. I downloaded the will of the wealthy London salted Thomas B who died in the late 1450s - widower of two Alices.

We don't even know for sure that the family was from London. We don't have evidence of the identity of either Mr Beamont or Mr Spayne. We're a very long ways off.

We'll have to agree to differ.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-17 21:26:14
mariewalsh2003
I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 12:56:31
Nicholas Brown

I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 17:18:56
Hilary Jones
Nico I had a look at Robert Spayne's 'inauguration' into the Scriveners Guild. Taking the 'test' with him is Peter Bonaunder. If you do a search on Bonaunt on google there is a John Bonaunt, gent, in London in 1490, together with a Richard Bonaunt, Clerk, from Chelsfield Kent. William Cosyn's London ancestors also seem to have acquired property in Great Sutton Kent in the mid fourteenth century.
One other thing, if Emme Bremonger/Poliver is our Emme then she has an important connection with EW. The John Gaynsford who married her daughter was the nephew of Nicholas Gaynsford (died 1498) favourite of EW, with his son another John a 1483 rebel, and someone who re-gained considerable success under HT. John Gaynsford's first wife was Anne Haute, daughter of Richard Haute who had been controller of Edward POW's household.
BTW I also have TB born in the early 1460s, that is unless he was a prodigy who went up to Oxford at 14. H
On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 17:53:05
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme.
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

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

2018-10-18 19:10:04
Doug Stamate
Marie,
I hadn't considered disputes arising from contested wills; although, since I
've read so many mysteries where a will was involved, I really should have!
That bit about the "mass production" of pardons at the beginning of Henry
VIII's reign was also new to me. Am I correct in presuming that someone
might apply for a pardon even though they may not have actually done
anything that required one? Anything that they knew of, anyway? Sort of a
"Get out of Jail" card if needed, then. Very interesting.
Doug

Marie wrote:
"It's not at all unusual for disputes to arise over the administration of a
will, and my guess is that there mah have been some issue with Cosyn's
handling of these wills and he had maybe been taken to court over it. Also a
lot of pardons were issued at the start of Henry VIII's reign, and people
would avail to be on the safe side. In fact, a list of names of people who
couldn't have pardons was drawn up.
Whether Beaumont and King were close before Beaumont's appointment as
Archdeacon of Bath, I don't know. You'd expect a bishop and his
long-standing top cathedral clergy to form a close relationship, wouldn't
you?"



--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 19:55:31
mariewalsh2003
Excellent! Thanks, Nico.

It's as we suspected but it means we can now confidently narrow the field of search without worrying we might be missing something.

We need to bear in mind that the medieval diocese of London included not just the city of London but also the rest of Middlesex, Essex and much of Hertfordshire.

The university seems to have kept a record of students' home dioceses but no further details of their origins, because that is all Emden gives except maybe when parents' identities are otherwise known.

So whoever Beaumont the father was, he died no earlier than 1463.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 20:59:31
Hilary Jones
Yippee! Back tomorrow with a couple for my whiteboard. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, October 18, 2018, 7:24 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Excellent! Thanks, Nico.

It's as we suspected but it means we can now confidently narrow the field of search without worrying we might be missing something.

We need to bear in mind that the medieval diocese of London included not just the city of London but also the rest of Middlesex, Essex and much of Hertfordshire.

The university seems to have kept a record of students' home dioceses but no further details of their origins, because that is all Emden gives except maybe when parents' identities are otherwise known.

So whoever Beaumont the father was, he died no earlier than 1463.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-18 22:34:26
ricard1an
I think that the Haute's were cousins of the Woodvilles.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 08:38:52
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,
According to Athenae Oxoniensis, the supplication in 1500 was for a degree in divinity, but it isn't recorded whether he was successful.
St Clement Danes sounds more plausible- it was the same general area as the debtor he and his mother were suing in zCommon Pleas in 1500. It may not necessarily be where he was born, of course, but it's just worth noting that it is the opposite side of London from Emmas Bremanger and Stone.
And also worth noting that the diocese of London, just as it rules in Middx and Essex, rules out certain places near London such as Kent and even Southwark.
I'm in two minds whether to go by the names of the Brzmptons' children as they could have named the eldest for King John of Portugal, the next two for King Henry VII and Q Elizabeth, etc, but there does seem to have been a John Beaumont active in the city at about the right time, although I can't look into it at the moment.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 10:23:20
Hilary Jones
I think we're a bit closer now! Poliver died in about 1493 (I'll turn it up for you) so Emme could have married Spayne after that and before Beaumont's death in 1507.
King and Cosyn certainly come from the same merchant classes in London - they were both in the cloth/garment trade. The Cosyns go back to the thirteenth century and probably earlier. We now know Beaumont was also from London (as I thought). King appointed Beaumont to all his west country posts at about the same time that he appointed Cosyn, who we know did well out of him. BTW I think our book did at some point pass through Cosyn's hands. If you look at his biography he spent a considerable time around about 1505 collecting papers on Wells cathedral and on canon law. This was because he was often in dispute with them (after King's death) about his methods. Also the book is quoted at some of the meetings at Wells. I don't think TB spent much time at Wells, I recall he only went on one inspection. His passing isn't even recorded. The bishop no doubt was busy with his palace. I did find Malcolm (not Mathew) Cosyn. He's a priest in another diocese.
FTIW I think we should start looking at the Kent gentry (including Thomas Moyle) and also at EW's relationships with the Guilds. She was certainly patron of the Skinners, wasn't she?
We can also take John Spayne off the whiteboard - his wife was called Jane. And thanks for confirming that I hadn't missed a stray child for Thomas the salter. Off to find John Bonaunt gent. H
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 12:28:54 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

To be fair, you talked about having given me the proofs and of that Emme Bremonger must have married all these people.

I don't at all see why we should assume Petit to have been of Jewish descent. The book says it is making assumptions based on trade. But no way, for instance, were all goldsmiths of Jewish descent. There are some obvious surnames of Jewish origin, I know, such as Abrams, Isaacs, etc, but I suspect this book has been far too lax in its criteria.

No,we rarely get proof but that doesn't mean we can pretend to proof that isn't there or give up on the search without combing every possible source. Research takes a very long time.

For me I'm afraid your scenario doesn't work well even as an hypothesis - the dates don't fit for Emme Bramonger, and we have nothing at all to link her to the other Emme or to Thomas's old mum.. I stand to be proved wrong, of course, but then it will be because it has been proved.

Have you considered that TB might have acquired his wealth as a result of his career? Perhaps a better clue to his family wealth would be the coral rosary and muskball of unstated material which his mother had once given to him and which he returned to her in his will.
Even if the family was wealthy it wouldn't prove a thing. I downloaded the will of the wealthy London salted Thomas B who died in the late 1450s - widower of two Alices.

We don't even know for sure that the family was from London. We don't have evidence of the identity of either Mr Beamont or Mr Spayne. We're a very long ways off.

We'll have to agree to differ.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 10:25:05
Hilary Jones
I'm also interested in the John Brampton who joined Lincoln's Inn in 1505 - just to cross him off as well. H
On Friday, 19 October 2018, 08:38:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Nico,
According to Athenae Oxoniensis, the supplication in 1500 was for a degree in divinity, but it isn't recorded whether he was successful.
St Clement Danes sounds more plausible- it was the same general area as the debtor he and his mother were suing in zCommon Pleas in 1500. It may not necessarily be where he was born, of course, but it's just worth noting that it is the opposite side of London from Emmas Bremanger and Stone.
And also worth noting that the diocese of London, just as it rules in Middx and Essex, rules out certain places near London such as Kent and even Southwark.
I'm in two minds whether to go by the names of the Brzmptons' children as they could have named the eldest for King John of Portugal, the next two for King Henry VII and Q Elizabeth, etc, but there does seem to have been a John Beaumont active in the city at about the right time, although I can't look into it at the moment.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 10:56:58
Hilary Jones
One other little point which may be entirely co-incidental - the manor of Alveston belonged to the Lords Beaumont. H
On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 18:36:24 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found Thomas Beaumonts entry in the Emden book. It doesn't say who his parents were, but confirms that he was from London and born in 1463/4. Here is a summary of the information in the article, (some positions overlap):
- London Diocese
- Magdalen College: adm. 27 April 1482; - took Statutory Oath 1484 aged 20; vac 1484- Merton College: bachelor 5 April 1484; bachelor fellow, adm. 21 Jan 1486; fellow 1488; vac. 1495; 2nd bursar 1489-90/1491-92; 3rd bursar 1490-91, 1492-93; King of the Beans, 19 Nov 1495- MA June30 1488- Supplicated for B.Thomas (bishop?) 1500
- Rector of St. Clement Danes, London adm 22October 1495 (until death)
- Canon of Wells and Prebendary of Taunton, adm 5 April 1497, vac 1499- Archdeacon of Bath, inst. 31 March 1499, vac same year- Provost of Wells, inst 20 July 1499, vac 1502- Vicar of Alveston, Warwickshire, adm 2 November 1502, va by Jan 1504- Archdeacon of Wells , inst 19 Nov 1502 (until death)- Vicar of Minehead, Somerset, adm 18 Mar 1503 (until death)
- Rector of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, adm 28 Jan 1504 (until death)
- Canon of Wells, adm 1 April 1504 (until death)

Died October 1507 Will dated 5 Feb, 1507. Notes request in will to be buried in Wells Cathedral before the crucifix over the Lady Chapel door.Made a gift to New CollegeNote about 'an exor. of the will of Oliver King bp of Bath and Wells 1503
He seems to have had more positions that I realized. I had also thought his Saint Clement parish was Eastcheap, but it was the more prestigious St Clement Danes. He seems to have had a fairly distinguished academic career, then seems to have been rising in the Church from the late 1490s. If he hadn't died at 43, he could have gone quite far, perhaps a bishop or more.
Hilary, I will look up the Bonaunts and the Gaynsfords. This could be our Emme..
Nico






On Thursday, 18 October 2018, 12:56:39 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I would also estimate around 1460 for Margaret and Thomas' birthdates, making Thomas in his late 40s or early 50s when he died. I found the Emden book in my local library catalogue, so I will try to have a look at it later.
Beaumont's possible London/Kent connections are worth considering. Kent was closer to the city of London then now. It is a shame the story of Ralph Wilford is so threadbare. Also, could it have been possible that Fabyan's account (which seems to be the only one covering it) isn't entirely correct? I find it very strange that a fantasist, who couldn't even get his facts clear would find any serious encouragement or support. Rather than Wilford claiming to be Warwick, my suspicion is it may have been a more complex plot aimed at Warwick and/or Warbeck, but the real facts were concealed, and the version Fabyan gives, was a cover up to explain the unrest. Could TB have been in a position to have information from Brampton or elsewhere, and the archdeaconry was his reward, like Brampton's son's knighthood. Maybe Brampton was so helpful, Henry decided to be generous to both his son and his brother in law.
John Petit sounds familiar. I can't remember who he was in relation to Warbeck. It may have been another name for John Taylor the younger, but I can't be sure.
Nico

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 21:26:20 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I've had another thought on how to check on Thomas Beaumont's birthplace. He was a graduate of Oxford ( MA c1486 according to wood's Athenae Oxoniensis). Therefore he should be in com 1 of Emden's Biographical Register if the Universitd if Oxford to 1500', if anyone has access. University libraries and main city libraries should have copies. The thing is, it is likely to give his home diocese.

Which brings me to something else. I must admit I personally was losing sight of how young Thomas is likely to have been when he died. His sister didn't marry until 1480-5, and If his own academic career followed the usual course, he was probably still in his twenties when he grad. MA.
So perhaps we are looking for his having been born c.1460 or a little earlier?

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 12:24:15
mariewalsh2003
Hilary, as I posted earlier, Thomas's mother was Emme Spayne, widow, in 1500 when the two of them sued a debtor in Common Pleas.
I was actually the first of us to suggest London, on the basis of that very case, but we needed proper evidence before actually ruling out other areas. Thanks to my suggestion of Emden and Nico's hard work, we now *know* it was London, middx, Essex or South Herts, but that it was definitely the city of London is still not definitively proven, although likely.
If we totally rely on hunches some of the time we will be right but the rest of the time we won't.
I don't understand the Woodville Haute conspiracy theory, but maybe that's just me. Even if RoY had been with the Bramptons, Margaret couldn't have gone round telling her family. She may not even have been told who he was herself. And these links are

King and Cosyn were uncle and nephew, and were Cambridge men (King took the Eton- King's route, I don't know about Cosyn). Beaumont was an Oxford man and doesn't mention a relationship to them in his will so even if present it may not have been close. They were both associated with Beaumont via Bath & Welles, so if the links went back before Beaumont's appointments in that diocese that would of course need to be demonstrated. It's just basic practice.

Of course Cosyn would have had the book in his possession at some point, as he was the only one of Thomas's named executors who was sworn in. The question is, did he hang on to it or pass it on to someone else? He inhabited an environment in which such books would be in demand. We don't know so we'd best not speculate. It's not that I think it unlikely - it's the methods. I constantly feel railroaded into going beyond the evidence, if I can be honest.
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-10-19 12:42:25
Nicholas Brown
I have also thought that John, Henry and Elizabeth could have been named after the Kings and Queens of that name. In the Portuguese royal family there is also a Jorge, Maria and Joana, which accounts for the other children. No Emme, Thomas, Edward or Margaret, so they probably went with their own choices.
Interesting about Alveston and the Lords Beaumont. I looked up British History Online, and it jumped from around 1300 to the Reformation, so there was no mention the Beaumonts there, but they must be in that gap. I did think that appointment stood out from all the others geographically. Maybe it was the Lancastrian link that I had a suspicion about. However, I think that Margaret and Thomas were the descended from younger sons of younger sons who went to London, but maybe that is their Beaumont home. St. Clement Danes is further from the area where the merchants lived. Also, at that time, it doesn't seem to have been as prestigious as it is now. He could have been from that part of London, or it could just have been where he was sent.

Was it usual for someone to have their first church appointment at age 31, after spending over a decade in academia? He does seem to getting prestige appointments rather quickly. Of course, that could be from his own merits, but it is worth noting that they appear one after another from the mid 1490s, when Brampton was clearly co-operating with Henry.
It was the name Spayne that drew me to Kent. There is a Beaumont family there, but it isn't clear how or if they are related to other Beaumonts. Spayne is centered around Elham and the surrounding area, not far from Eastwell and John Haute at Waltham.