murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the category “genealogy”

MODERN RICHARD!

I came upon an interesting Instagram post  by Royalty-now where someone had taken the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard III, removed his hat and long hair and blended his face with that of a 21st century man. Although I miss the hair personally, I think he scrubbed up rather well! A few folk commenting noticed a resemblance to certain actors–Richard Armitage came up (Richard who was named for OUR Richard and  was born on August 22) and also Dr Who actor Arthur Darvill.

Modern Richard

For comparison, here is someone doing something similar with a couple  of the Tudors–Elizabeth I (also looking spookily as I’d imagine Margaret Beaufort did), looks like a very intimidating cutthroat business woman or politician…while her dad, Henry VIII, looks more like a night-club bouncer!

MODERN “TUDORS”

RICHARD IN THE 21ST CENTURY…

MODERNR

Some folk also claim to see a resemblance to some of Richard’s modern day descendants too–here is an article on Michael Ibsen and his family that is not often seen as it is from a Canadian source. I personally don’t see much  similarity to Michael, although some others do…but perhaps a little in his brother Jeff?

Canadian Relatives of Richard III

A king in a car park…now a king in your front garden….?

The burial places of kings continue to be located in the British Isles, and this latest one is in East Belfast.

“….four centuries after the death of a Gaelic lord, the site in east Belfast where historic records say he is buried is up for sale to developers.

“….Look around the place names in east Belfast and you might notice a theme: Connswater Shopping Centre, Connswater Bridge, Connswater River.

“….They are named after Conn O’Neill, the Lord of Upper Clandeboye, referred to by some as the last King of Castlereagh, who ruled from 1601 to 1619….”

To read more go to this article.

And then resort to your piggy banks, because the site is up for sale!

Was there a monstrous serpent and treasure hoard near Ludlow…or not?

 

We all know Thomas of Walsingham. Well, not personally, of course, although sometimes it seems like it. He was a very busy fellow, and did not always record simple ‘history’, but included some strange stories as well. In the year 1344, he recorded a ‘remarkable tale’ about John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, 7th and final earl of his line.

Warenne was one of the nobles who disapproved of Piers Gaveston, but wavered about killing him and was eventually part of Edward II’s party. He and his brother-in-law, the 9th Earl of Arundel, were the last two nobles to stay loyal to the king after Isabella and Mortimer took over. When Arundel was executed, Warenne went over to the queen’s side. He had no children, and was eventually succeeded by his nephew, the 10th Earl of Arundel. He died in 1347 at the age of 61, after making strenuous efforts to produce a legitimate heir of his own! He was estranged from his first wife, kept a mistress who gave him illegitimate children, and then married again to a young wife who gave him no children at all. Well, we can’t say the earl didn’t try!

This story has often been wrongly told of Bromfield in Herefordshire, but is actually much more likely to have been Bromfield, just north-west of Ludlow in the Welsh Marches. Why? Well, for one thing the latter was held by John de Warenne, which the former was not. Bromfield in Herefordshire had been in the hands of the monks of Bromfield Priory since the time of the Confessor, and the whole strange tale I am about to relate took place on the property of John de Warenne, and purports to relate exactly how the earl became quite as rich as he was. Not that he was ever a poor man, you understand.

It seems that a Saracen doctor came to Warenne, to tell him of a terrible serpent (dragon?) that lived in a cave near Bromfield. The Saracen begged permission to kill and remove the awful creature, which was about to terrorise the entire area. The earl, naturally enough, agreed to the request. Well, wouldn’t you? I mean, who wants a pesky huge, mean-hearted serpent on the loose on your land?

The Saracen said that he would perform his task alone, and after warning everyone to stay away from the cave, which posed mortal danger to anyone who did not know what they were doing, he went secretly to slay the monstrous serpent. Later, task done (or so he said) he returned to say he had rid the area of the threat.

Now, we all know that serpents and dragons in caves are there to guard huge treasure hoards, right? Yes, indeed, and it was soon around the area that this serpent too had been guarding such a treasure. No longer afraid of the cave, some local men went to search it…and after a while found the evidence they sought.

In the meantime, however, the earl’s men got wind of what was going on, and told him. Angry to think he was being swindled out of this huge treasure, he sent his men to get the treasure, which he took into his own coffers. And that, my friends, is how John de Warenne became as dizzily rich as he reputedly was.

Now, some accounts of this story say that the Saracen continued to warn of dangers in the cave, that he knew about the treasure and even said it was there! It’s said he intended to go back for it himself. But that seems unlikely to me. If he knew there was a hoard in the cave, why not go and get it in the first place? Why invent a mighty serpent guardian? And certainly why, when he came back a lauded serpent-slayer, would he tell the locals what was hidden in the cave?

Well, to be fair, perhaps he had indeed fought, killed and disposed of the beast. Who can say? But only a daftie would let slip that there was a huge hoard of gold or whatever just waiting to be found. He’d have been trampled in the rush!

I don’t know the truth of it, of course. Maybe there is a more comprehensive version of the tale? If so, I would like to hear it. In the meantime, if anyone tells you there is a monstrous serpent guarding a cave near you, don’t believe it. Just get to that cave pdq and get the treasure before someone else does!

The Crown Jewels of East Anglia?

Picture: Birmingham Museums Trust

This excellent EADT article suggests that a horde found near Tamworth about ten years ago included some crown jewels worn by Anna* or Onna, the (Wuffing) King of East Anglia and nephew of Raedwald. He is likely to have died in a 653/4 battle near Blythburgh, along with his Bishop, Thomas, fighting against Penda’s pagan Mercians. Tamworth is, of course, in Mercia and parts of the treasure can be seen there: in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery as well as the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent. All five of Anna’s children, including Ethelreda (Audrey) and Jurmin, his only son who died in the same battle.

* Male, despite his name, as were the C16 French warrior Anne de Montmorency and the historian Sharon Turner.

Margaret Beaufort married John of Gaunt….!

 

wood carving of Sir Christopher Urswick in Urswick School’s musuem

I always thought Starkey was a waspish prig (his public opinion of those who support Richard III is just as derogatory!) but having read this article, I think he’s slap-dash as well. Certainly he can’t be checking what goes out to herald the latest of his lectures – this one will no doubt manage to be another anti-Richard diatribe. It’s based around Christopher Urswick, and here’s a quote from the above link:-

“Born in Furness, Cumbria, in 1448 Christopher Urswick had a remarkable life….He was a priest but and [sic] became a confessor of Margaret Beaufort. She had married King Edward III’s son, John of Gaunt, when she was just 13. Not long after she gave birth to his child, Henry, she was widowed.”

I had no idea that Margaret and her son were that old…or that such an extra skeleton lurked in their capacious cupboard. Henry VII would have been cock-a-hoop to claim Gaunt as his father! But I wonder if Gaunt was aware of this extra wife and son?

Eleanor of Aquitaine, the Kingmaker and Richard II: the eyes have it….!

Well, I have to say that the above carving is very startling. It is believed to be of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and has just been discovered at Bradwell Abbey, Milton Keynes. There is nothing in this article to say why they are so certain it’s Eleanor, but they seem in no doubt.

The first thing that occurred to me, however, was that the eyes reminded me very forcibly of the carving of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the “Kingmaker”, as a mourner on the tomb of his father-in-law, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick.

There is also a likeness of the Beauchamp tomb of the Kingmaker’s sister, Cecily Neville, Duchess of Warwick, and she too has these striking eyes. I’m told by a friend that in his biography of the Kingmaker, Professor Pollard decided there had been a real attempt to create a true likeness, so I imagine that these eyes must indeed be a trait in the Neville family.

There is an odd little story about Edward III, in which he apparently gave credence to the story of his family being descended from Melusine, the Devil’s daughter. The king claimed that the House of Plantagenet was descended from Melusine, and that slanting eyes appeared to be evidence of this. There is one member of that house who definitely had slanting eyes, Richard II.

So, where did those eyes originate? Or was it all mere coincidence that the likes of Eleanor of Aquitaine, the Kingmaker and Richard II appear to have shared such a memorable feature?

Desperately Seeking Wolsey….

The discovery in Leicester of the remains of Richard III was surely one of the greatest such event, and since then there have been increased attempts to locate other great figures from our past. Leicester has at least one other such person just waiting to be found, but as yet he’s proving elusive. The location of Cardinal Wolsey’s burial has been a matter of debate for some time now, and this blog has mentioned it at least twice, as well as the angels made for his tomb.

Over the past five hundred years there have been a number of attempts to find the man whose humble beginnings as an innkeeper’s son did not prevent him from rising to be one of the highest and most influential figures in Tudor England. It’s hard to even imagine what Leicester Abbey looked like at the time of his interment, let alone where in its footprint the great cardinal might be lying.

An artist impression of Leicester Abbey in its heyday. John Finnie

Now there has been another article about his missing tomb, but I’m afraid that if he really did look like his awful statue, I’d rather they didn’t find him! He’s enough to give children nightmares.

The Abbey Park statute of Cardinal Wolsey who died at Leicester Abbey in 1530 (Image: Will Johnston)

The rise of the Tudors….

This article may be about how the Tudors came to power, but it sits carefully (and, in general, sensibly) on the fence. By that I mean it doesn’t overload them with ‘golden’ praise. Thank goodness.

However, the typos run thick and fast. For instance, The widowed Catherine of Valois is referred to as a ‘window’, and Owen Tudor becomes ‘Owen Henry’ and then ‘Owner Henry’.

It’s an interesting potted history of the events that followed the end of Richard II’s reign and it ends with the reign of Elizabeth I. Richard III is described as follows: “….Richard III became King – the most evil King of England as he would become known….” The as he would become known is fair comment…and a saving grace. But it is not fair comment that Richard had a second coronation before Bosworth. He had no such thing.

I’m sure that most articles about the Tudors would word the remark about Richard’s reign rather differently. For example: “…Richard III became the most evil of England’s kings….” Although how anyone could think he was more evil than Henry VIII I really don’t know. Instead Henry is referred to as “one of Britain’s most popular figures in history”. Um, well, I doubt if his wives would relish hearing him so described! Or the Catholic Church! Or all the thousands of people he despatched to the hereafter.

But, the article does give a reasonably fair gist of how we were inflicted with the darling House of Tudor.

 

 

How would Thetford Priory have looked?

(see here for more about Robert II)

Mid Anglia Group, Richard III Society

Thetford Priory was, of course, a Cluniac Priory. Whilst some walls stand away from the entrance, in other areas only the foundations remain and the Mowbray tomb locations are no longer marked, although those of the Howards, moved to Framlingham, remain.

If only, I hear you say, some kind of restoration could take place. That would be extremely expensive but there is a comparable building, although it suffered less dilapidation in the first place. Paisley Abbey was also a Cluniac priory and constructed in the twelfth century, although it had to be rebuilt in 1307 after an Edward I visit. Just nine years after that, on March 2nd, Marjorie Bruce, the king’s daughter married to Walter the Steward, fell off her horse nearby, whilst heavily pregnant. Although she died, her son was born alive and survived to 74, eventually succeeding his uncle as Robert II, the first Stewart King and…

View original post 63 more words

So wrong he could be right?

This article, by the former MP Norman Baker, appeared in the Mail on Sunday. Actually, the original version was much longer and referred to Elizabeth II as a descendant of Henry VIII. This is an egregious howler, surely, because all of his actual descendants died by 1603 (or the last day of 1602/3 in the old format), although she is a collateral descendant.

Strangely enough, Mr. Baker may just have been right, albeit unwittingly. Henry VIII did have three known illegitimate children, quite apart from the two born to marriages he subsequently annulled. Excluding the trio who reigned after him, as well as Henry Fitzroy Duke of Richmond who also died without issue, leaves us with the offspring of Mary Boleyn, the relationship with whom arguably invalidated his marriage to her sister, even before it happened. Ostensibly her children by her first husband (William Carey), they are Catherine Carey and Henry, Lord Hunsdon, who had a total of about twenty children.

Just like the Poles, the Carey family became extinct in the male line but they still exist through several mixed lines. Vol. 25 no. 9 pp. 345-52 of the Genealogists’ Magazine, through Anthony Hoskins’ article, as cited to me by John Ashdown-Hill, attributes the late Queen Mother to these lines, together with such as Charles Darwin, P.G. Wodehouse, Vita Sackville-West, Sabine Baring-Gould, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Horatio Viscount Nelson, Lady Antonia Pakenham and the second Devereux Earl of Essex (below)- presumably the easiest link to prove, being the shortest by far. His mtDNA was identical to that of Elizabeth I.

Vaughan Williams and Darwin are closely related to each other, as well as to Josiah Wedgwood.

As with all mixed lines, it is impossible to establish much of this descent by either mtDNA or Y-chromosome but who knows how genetic science may develop in the future?

Here is the evidence so far …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS Thankyou to Peter Hammond for showing me the full article, which also names Lady Anne Somerset, J. Horace Round, William Cowper, Algernon Swinburne, “Princess Daisy of Pless” and Algernon Sidney as also being in the Carey line.

Thankyou also to Marie Barnfield.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: