Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tony Hoskins

Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 00:25:02

Having written my article making the case for Henry VIII probably being
the father of the Carey children, I found myself in the uncomfortable
position of wondering if I was merely adding to a body of literature
most of which I deprecated.

"So-and-so couldn't really have the origins the records tell us, he/she
must have been a changeling, child of this or that royal or genius".
Sort of thing. There is a kind of mindset for such genealogical
what-iffing that is for me embarrassingly close to "conspiracy-think" -
in my view a minor sort of mental illness. Having said that, over the
three years I researched the matter, *the facts* seemed so powerful that
I became convinced that my work wouldn't fall into that category. I
remain convinced of this.

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case. All theories are not the same. So, I
am dismayed to see some of the comments following on the wake of the
recent discussion of my article.

There is a rich mother lode of genealogical-claptrap theories out
there. Just because one or two sensational cases appear to be true
doesn't imply that this is commonplace.

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but my purpose is to issue warnings
not to take any theory of putative parenthood (however novel, exotic,
dramatic, attractive) seriously *until* it is subjected to the brutal
glare of scientific and systematic examination.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 okt 2005 00:25:03

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/30/05 3:24:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case

However the only thing I've heard so far against the idea that Elizabeth had
a child is something like "... but she couldn't have!" with no argumenation
behind it. I read a paper on-line recently claiming that Francis Bacon was her
son and it seemed well-argued to me.

I have not seen any in-depth argument, but I would have to think the
strongest evidence against it is that there is no direct contemporary
evidence for it, and with all of the whispering around the palace, it is
reasonable to suspect that something would have appeared somewhere.
There must be a high burden of proof in such cases.

Part of the problem with such musings (as with all "secrets") is that by
their very nature there is no refutory evidence. There would not be a
contemporary document denying Elizabeth having had an illegitimate child
unless there had been some public accusation that needed refuting. It
is just as with the "Pope Joan" proponants pointing at the lack of any
contemporary evidence disproving their theory, yet it would occur to no
one at the time to explicitly state that the Pope is not female, which
would have seemed inherently absurd. To be useful, an argument must
distinguish between alternatives - in this case, if the Pope was female,
no one would insist she was male, and if the Pope was not female, no one
would insist he was male, so the fact that no one insists the Pope is
male is not evidence for a female Pope, which, as above, due to its
inherent nature must have a high burden.

taf

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 00:39:02

In a message dated 9/30/05 3:24:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

<< But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case >>

However the only thing I've heard so far against the idea that Elizabeth had
a child is something like "... but she couldn't have!" with no argumenation
behind it. I read a paper on-line recently claiming that Francis Bacon was her
son and it seemed well-argued to me.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 00:42:39

I'm sorry but I read that link and it is not a very good argument. One
can show dozens of Tudor period wills where children were not mentioned
because they had been provided for already. I believe Mr. Hoskins is
correct in the danger of "conspiracy theory mentality" and what can
also be called the very weak "argumentum a silencio."

Clearly we need for the records to tell us the story. Too many people
construct a story and then use this record or that to bolster or
disprove their theory. The lack of records can mean many things and
one of them, is nothing at all.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 01:13:02

"However the only thing I've heard so far against the idea that
Elizabeth had a child is something like "... but she couldn't have!"
with no argumenation behind it."

Well, of course she (presuming normal health) *could*, but does that
necessarily mean she *must have* or *did*?!

"I read a paper on-line recently claiming that Francis Bacon was her
son and it seemed well-argued to me."

Oh, I see. Please inform us of what the paper was titled, how we can
read it, and tell us a little why you thought it well-argued. *Then* we
can talk.

I'm beginning to think this is a pointless point to try to make. My
apologies, Folks!

T.

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 01:23:02

In a message dated 9/30/05 4:12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< I have not seen any in-depth argument, but I would have to think the
strongest evidence against it is that there is no direct contemporary
evidence for it, and with all of the whispering around the palace, it is
reasonable to suspect that something would have appeared somewhere.
There must be a high burden of proof in such cases. >>

For anyone interested you just go to http://www.google.com and type something like
Francis Bacon Elizabeth's child
or something similar.

Here is a direct link to at least one page discussing this
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/anne_&_si ... _bacon.htm

Will Johnson

Kristie Thompson

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 01 okt 2005 02:35:02

If you are referring to my comment about Elizabeth - I think I gave you some
very solid reasons why she "couldn't have." Any theory about Elizabeth
having illegitimate children would have to have some serious proof! As I
told you, it would certainly be hard to hide the fact that the Queen is
pregnant. And given the existence of other potential heirs to the throne -
some with as strong a claim as Elizabeth had (i.e., Mary Stuart, Henry
Darnley, and Lettice Knollys are three of the many who come to mind)
Elizabeth's enemies would have seized upon this to dispute her claim. There
certainly would have been rumors of even the best cover up. There are
contemporary rumors about Henry Carey being Henry VIII's illegitimate child,
but as far as I know, no proven ones exist about Elizabeth. The suggestion
that Elizabeth had Francis Bacon while in the Tower would have sealed the
deal for her -- the highly pious Mary would have killed her for what she
would have perceived as a sin (not to mention a threat to her throne!)
So, I think there are plenty of legitimate arguments why Francis Bacon could
not have been Elizabeth's son. It is always interesting to play "what if",
but historians have to deal with primary documents and proof. I own a copy
of The Queen's Bastard, as I do enjoy reading "what if" history. However, I
also see this as a work of fiction. If you could send the link of the
online article you'd read, I'd like to check it out. I'm always interested!
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


In a message dated 9/30/05 3:24:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case

However the only thing I've heard so far against the idea that Elizabeth
had
a child is something like "... but she couldn't have!" with no
argumenation
behind it. I read a paper on-line recently claiming that Francis Bacon
was her
son and it seemed well-argued to me.
Will Johnson

______________________________

Kristie Thompson

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 01 okt 2005 02:49:01

I checked out the site, and I'm just not convinced. The web site author
does not hold a degree in history - he holds a degree in psychology. He
also has a vested interest in keeping this controversy going as he makes he
is documenting his experiences. Now, with that being said, it doesn't mean
he's not capable of having an informed opinion.

But the sources he states also have flaws - one states that Queen Elizabeth
married Dudley while he was still married to Amy.

Several of the author's proofs are just assumptions - for example "Nicholas
Bacon left him penniless in his will knowing the Queen would take care of
him."

It would have to be a reputable historian who'd searched through all the
primary documents before I'd believe it.

Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


In a message dated 9/30/05 4:12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

I have not seen any in-depth argument, but I would have to think the
strongest evidence against it is that there is no direct contemporary
evidence for it, and with all of the whispering around the palace, it is
reasonable to suspect that something would have appeared somewhere.
There must be a high burden of proof in such cases.

For anyone interested you just go to http://www.google.com and type something
like
Francis Bacon Elizabeth's child
or something similar.

Here is a direct link to at least one page discussing this
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/anne_&_si ... _bacon.htm

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 02:55:02

In a message dated 9/30/05 5:48:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:

<< Several of the author's proofs are just assumptions - for example "Nicholas
Bacon left him penniless in his will knowing the Queen would take care of
him." >>

But we do know that :
1) Nicholas Bacon left something to each of his children, except he did not
mention Francis whatsoever. He didn't say "To Francis 1 crown" or "nothing to
Francis who has been provided for", he just didn't mention him.
2) Francis never, in any of his letters, complains about this unusual
treatment. Not then, not later.
3) None of the rest of his family comments upon it either, even though there
are many extant letters.

Those three things together are at least the start of something unusual going
on here.
Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 03:08:01

"this unusual treatment"

I cannot tell you how many instances I could cite you to parents in the
16th and 17th centuries not naming living children in their wills while
naming others. That a child is not mentioned in a parent's will in that
period in no way should be construed to bespeak anything out of the
ordinary. Testators simply did not mention chidlren for whom provision
had already been made.

This interpretation of the will is incorrect and is argumentum ex
silentio.

Tony Hoskins


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Kristie Thompson

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 01 okt 2005 04:06:02

That might indeed be strange, but it is in no way proof that Elizabeth was
Bacon's father. Maybe Bacon ticked his father off, and there's no reason
for the family to mention it. Maybe he was left money from his
mother...there are many reasons.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


In a message dated 9/30/05 5:48:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:

Several of the author's proofs are just assumptions - for example
"Nicholas
Bacon left him penniless in his will knowing the Queen would take care of
him."

But we do know that :
1) Nicholas Bacon left something to each of his children, except he did
not
mention Francis whatsoever. He didn't say "To Francis 1 crown" or
"nothing to
Francis who has been provided for", he just didn't mention him.
2) Francis never, in any of his letters, complains about this unusual
treatment. Not then, not later.
3) None of the rest of his family comments upon it either, even though
there
are many extant letters.

Those three things together are at least the start of something unusual
going
on here.
Will Johnson

______________________________

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 05:48:01

In a message dated 9/30/2005 7:05:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:


Maybe Bacon ticked his father off, and there's no reason
for the family to mention it. Maybe he was left money from his
mother...there are many reasons.


It's not meant to be proof. It's meant to raise suspicions.
And both of the above reasons are not correct. There are, within this
family, literally hundreds of letters preserved. If there were some tiff before
Francis and his [foster?] father it would be apparent.
Will

Sutliff

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Sutliff » 01 okt 2005 07:18:29

I haven't followed this entire thread, so not sure if anyone has mentioned
this or not. I did indeed read the Carey article back in 1997, but would
point to the following statement from Henry's own pen.

In April 1538 he was in negotiations with Emperor Charles V for the marriage
of his daughter Mary and Dom Luis of Portugal. Henry VIII wrote to Charles
to:

"assure unto him and her and their posterity as much yearly rent as the late
Duke of Richmond, our only bastard son, had of our gift within this our
realm."

Harleian MS 252, f.26

Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond was dead. William Carey was dead and Thomas
Perrot was dead. All Henry had was a sickly son from Jane Seymour. That he
is silent in claiming either Henry Carey or John Perrot (or anyone else) as
sons suggests that he apparently did not consider them as his sons at that
date or later.

I must admit I am one of those who feel exceedingly uncomfortable assigning
children to persons centuries dead without better proof. I also think it
defeats the purpose of sound genealogy by adding the element of, for want of
a better term, conspiratorial conjecture for placement of additional
children. There is nothing wrong with speculating about such matters, but
when it crosses the line from speculation to entering the information into
databases as fact and solid lineage that it becomes dangerous to the
discipline of genealogy and subsequently lessens the reliabilty of research.

HS



""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s33d586c.037@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Having written my article making the case for Henry VIII probably being
the father of the Carey children, I found myself in the uncomfortable
position of wondering if I was merely adding to a body of literature
most of which I deprecated.

"So-and-so couldn't really have the origins the records tell us, he/she
must have been a changeling, child of this or that royal or genius".
Sort of thing. There is a kind of mindset for such genealogical
what-iffing that is for me embarrassingly close to "conspiracy-think" -
in my view a minor sort of mental illness. Having said that, over the
three years I researched the matter, *the facts* seemed so powerful that
I became convinced that my work wouldn't fall into that category. I
remain convinced of this.

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case. All theories are not the same. So, I
am dismayed to see some of the comments following on the wake of the
recent discussion of my article.

There is a rich mother lode of genealogical-claptrap theories out
there. Just because one or two sensational cases appear to be true
doesn't imply that this is commonplace.

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but my purpose is to issue warnings
not to take any theory of putative parenthood (however novel, exotic,
dramatic, attractive) seriously *until* it is subjected to the brutal
glare of scientific and systematic examination.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

Leo van de Pas

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 01 okt 2005 11:43:01

This is a multifaceted problem. Is it something we should be dogmatic about?
Or should we look at each case individually?

Do we always have to accept what an official piece of paper says?

During ther war in The Netherlands people had their birth information
amended to remove their Jewish background. Often they would use records from
the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) as they knew the Germans had no way of
double checking.

Charles II accepted Henry Fitzroy but there were doubts about his paternity.
Barbara Villiers also had a daughter named Barbara Fitzroy, but who was her
father? I understand it to be John Churchill but ES III/2 367 shows her as a
child of Charles II.

Some people doubt that James Scott was fathered by Charles II, but he was
well and truly accepted by Charles II. Lucy Walter had also a daughter,
Mary, who was fathered either by Henry Bennet but more likely by Lord
Taaffe. ES III/2 367 shows Mary amongst the children of Charles II with the
remark "not acknowledged", are they implying she should have been?

Then Emperor Paul of Russia, even his mother said he was not the son of her
husband but was this statement made out of spite? Others maintain that as a
person Paul very much resembled his mother's husband.

What about the children of Wilhelmine von Baden? She gave birth in 1806,
1807, 1809, 1821, 1822, 1823 and 1824. Between 1809 and 1821 what happened?
Her husband acknowledged all children but were they all his? Officially they
are, Isenburg and even ES volume 1.2 published in 1999 don't blink an eye.
But in 1989 Anthony Lambton published a book detailing how Baron August
Louis von Senarclens de Grancy is regarded to be the father of the last four
children. This book also maintains how Lord Louis Mountbatten tried to
suppress the knowledge. But then in 2000 the authorized biography of
Princess Alice (the sister of Lord Louis Mountbatten) by Hugo Vickers
appeared. And on page 8 is recorded that Lord Louis Mountbatten "was
prepared to recognize the rumour in his privately printed "The Mountbattens
Lineage" (1958) though discouraged from doing so by the then head of the
family, Prince Louis of Hesse and by Rhine."

I wonder was this an attempt to white-wash Lord Louis? Prince Louis/Ludwig
is not regarded to be a descendant of the Chamberlain but Lord Louis is.

What to do when the official parentage is not the official parentage? Should
we blandly accept the "offical" line? When there is enough information to
believe the un-official parentage, shouldn't we record that?

I think I have to leave the case for the paternity of the two Carey children
to Tony Hoskins, he provided for me strong enough records that I accept his
version. Apparently he also has the support of several historians.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message ----
-
From: "Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


I haven't followed this entire thread, so not sure if anyone has mentioned
this or not. I did indeed read the Carey article back in 1997, but would
point to the following statement from Henry's own pen.

In April 1538 he was in negotiations with Emperor Charles V for the
marriage of his daughter Mary and Dom Luis of Portugal. Henry VIII wrote
to Charles to:

"assure unto him and her and their posterity as much yearly rent as the
late Duke of Richmond, our only bastard son, had of our gift within this
our realm."

Harleian MS 252, f.26

Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond was dead. William Carey was dead and
Thomas Perrot was dead. All Henry had was a sickly son from Jane Seymour.
That he is silent in claiming either Henry Carey or John Perrot (or anyone
else) as sons suggests that he apparently did not consider them as his
sons at that date or later.

I must admit I am one of those who feel exceedingly uncomfortable
assigning children to persons centuries dead without better proof. I also
think it defeats the purpose of sound genealogy by adding the element of,
for want of a better term, conspiratorial conjecture for placement of
additional children. There is nothing wrong with speculating about such
matters, but when it crosses the line from speculation to entering the
information into databases as fact and solid lineage that it becomes
dangerous to the discipline of genealogy and subsequently lessens the
reliabilty of research.

HS



""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s33d586c.037@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Having written my article making the case for Henry VIII probably being
the father of the Carey children, I found myself in the uncomfortable
position of wondering if I was merely adding to a body of literature
most of which I deprecated.

"So-and-so couldn't really have the origins the records tell us, he/she
must have been a changeling, child of this or that royal or genius".
Sort of thing. There is a kind of mindset for such genealogical
what-iffing that is for me embarrassingly close to "conspiracy-think" -
in my view a minor sort of mental illness. Having said that, over the
three years I researched the matter, *the facts* seemed so powerful that
I became convinced that my work wouldn't fall into that category. I
remain convinced of this.

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case. All theories are not the same. So, I
am dismayed to see some of the comments following on the wake of the
recent discussion of my article.

There is a rich mother lode of genealogical-claptrap theories out
there. Just because one or two sensational cases appear to be true
doesn't imply that this is commonplace.

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but my purpose is to issue warnings
not to take any theory of putative parenthood (however novel, exotic,
dramatic, attractive) seriously *until* it is subjected to the brutal
glare of scientific and systematic examination.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California




Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 12:45:02

Henry,

Yes, I agree. In fact this has been followed by CP Vol VI, p 627 where
Henry Carey is shown as son and heir of William Carey but with a footnote giving
reasons why he may have been the son of Henry VIII

In his article, Tony Hoskins mentions the inquisition post mortem of William
Carey as Her. & Gen. IV, 129-130. I have not seen this, but presumably
gives Henry as his son and heir — that is the official records do not recognise
Henry Carey as being son of Henry VIII.

Adrian


Henry Sutliff wrote;

I haven't followed this entire thread, so not sure if anyone has mentioned
this or not. I did indeed read the Carey article back in 1997, but would
point to the following statement from Henry's own pen.

In April 1538 he was in negotiations with Emperor Charles V for the marriage
of his daughter Mary and Dom Luis of Portugal. Henry VIII wrote to Charles
to:

"assure unto him and her and their posterity as much yearly rent as the late
Duke of Richmond, our only bastard son, had of our gift within this our
realm."

Harleian MS 252, f.26

Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond was dead. William Carey was dead and Thomas
Perrot was dead. All Henry had was a sickly son from Jane Seymour. That he
is silent in claiming either Henry Carey or John Perrot (or anyone else) as
sons suggests that he apparently did not consider them as his sons at that
date or later.

I must admit I am one of those who feel exceedingly uncomfortable assigning
children to persons centuries dead without better proof. I also think it
defeats the purpose of sound genealogy by adding the element of, for want of
a better term, conspiratorial conjecture for placement of additional
children. There is nothing wrong with speculating about such matters, but
when it crosses the line from speculation to entering the information into
databases as fact and solid lineage that it becomes dangerous to the
discipline of genealogy and subsequently lessens the reliabilty of research.

HS



""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s33d586c.037@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Having written my article making the case for Henry VIII probably being
the father of the Carey children, I found myself in the uncomfortable
position of wondering if I was merely adding to a body of literature
most of which I deprecated.

"So-and-so couldn't really have the origins the records tell us, he/she
must have been a changeling, child of this or that royal or genius".
Sort of thing. There is a kind of mindset for such genealogical
what-iffing that is for me embarrassingly close to "conspiracy-think" -
in my view a minor sort of mental illness. Having said that, over the
three years I researched the matter, *the facts* seemed so powerful that
I became convinced that my work wouldn't fall into that category. I
remain convinced of this.

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case. All theories are not the same. So, I
am dismayed to see some of the comments following on the wake of the
recent discussion of my article.

There is a rich mother lode of genealogical-claptrap theories out
there. Just because one or two sensational cases appear to be true
doesn't imply that this is commonplace.

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but my purpose is to issue warnings
not to take any theory of putative parenthood (however novel, exotic,
dramatic, attractive) seriously *until* it is subjected to the brutal
glare of scientific and systematic examination.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

Kristie Thompson

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 01 okt 2005 16:05:02

Not really. Families often didn't like to put quarrels into words. But I
wasn't suggesting that was the answer! I was saying there are literally many
answers for why Bacon wasn't in his father's will. Maybe he was in his
mother's.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


In a message dated 9/30/2005 7:05:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:


Maybe Bacon ticked his father off, and there's no reason
for the family to mention it. Maybe he was left money from his
mother...there are many reasons.


It's not meant to be proof. It's meant to raise suspicions.
And both of the above reasons are not correct. There are, within this
family, literally hundreds of letters preserved. If there were some tiff
before
Francis and his [foster?] father it would be apparent.
Will

______________________________

Tony Hoskins

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 18:11:02

"that is the official records do not recognize Henry Carey as being son
of Henry VIII."

Well, of course. And the point is...? Am I missing something here?

Tony

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 18:53:01

In a message dated 01/10/2005 17:10:29 GMT Standard Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

"that is the official records do not recognize Henry Carey as being son
of Henry VIII."

Well, of course. And the point is...? Am I missing something here?

Tony





Inheritance, if there was any evidence that Henry was illegitimate, then who
was William Carey's heir, and would they not attempt to claim their
inheritance?

Adrian

Tony Hoskins

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 19:03:01

"if there was any evidence that Henry was illegitimate, then who
was William Carey's heir, and would they not attempt to claim their
inheritance?"

I thought it goes without saying that Henry Carey was William Carey's
heir. That's the point of my mentioning in the article the grants to
*William Carey* and his wife being made is such a fashion that William's
legal son Henry would inherit from William. I thought this was clear.

Henry VIII made grants to William Carey *because* as Henry Carey's
legal father Henry Carey (though the King's secret son) could have a
legitimate inheritance, albeit not from his real father; and also
therewith not divulging the biological reality of Henry Carey's birth.

Tony

Tony Hoskins

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 okt 2005 19:16:02

Sorry for error in previous: Should read:

Dear Mr. Sutliff:

Thanks for your interesting post.

"Only bastard son" would obviously refer to the only one acknowledged.
And, despite Richmond's death, the reasons Henry VIII would not
acknowledge another illegitimate son - and one born in double adultery
to the sister of his second queen, and mother of his purportedly
legitimate daughter Elizabeth - remain.

Tony Hoskins

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

"Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> 09/30/05 11:18PM
I haven't followed this entire thread, so not sure if anyone has

mentioned
this or not. I did indeed read the Carey article back in 1997, but
would
point to the following statement from Henry's own pen.

In April 1538 he was in negotiations with Emperor Charles V for the
marriage
of his daughter Mary and Dom Luis of Portugal. Henry VIII wrote to
Charles
to:

"assure unto him and her and their posterity as much yearly rent as the
late
Duke of Richmond, our only bastard son, had of our gift within this our

realm."

Harleian MS 252, f.26

Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond was dead. William Carey was dead and
Thomas
Perrot was dead. All Henry had was a sickly son from Jane Seymour. That
he
is silent in claiming either Henry Carey or John Perrot (or anyone
else) as
sons suggests that he apparently did not consider them as his sons at
that
date or later.

I must admit I am one of those who feel exceedingly uncomfortable
assigning
children to persons centuries dead without better proof. I also think
it
defeats the purpose of sound genealogy by adding the element of, for
want of
a better term, conspiratorial conjecture for placement of additional
children. There is nothing wrong with speculating about such matters,
but
when it crosses the line from speculation to entering the information
into
databases as fact and solid lineage that it becomes dangerous to the
discipline of genealogy and subsequently lessens the reliabilty of
research.

HS



""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s33d586c.037@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Having written my article making the case for Henry VIII probably
being
the father of the Carey children, I found myself in the
uncomfortable
position of wondering if I was merely adding to a body of literature
most of which I deprecated.

"So-and-so couldn't really have the origins the records tell us,
he/she
must have been a changeling, child of this or that royal or genius".
Sort of thing. There is a kind of mindset for such genealogical
what-iffing that is for me embarrassingly close to "conspiracy-think"
-
in my view a minor sort of mental illness. Having said that, over
the
three years I researched the matter, *the facts* seemed so powerful
that
I became convinced that my work wouldn't fall into that category. I
remain convinced of this.

But, I want to go on record here to say that (entertaining as du
Maurier and others are) their "theories" are desperately in need of
the
same kind of nuts-and-bolts factual and evidentiary scrutiny that I
applied to the Boleyn-Carey case. All theories are not the same. So,
I
am dismayed to see some of the comments following on the wake of the
recent discussion of my article.

There is a rich mother lode of genealogical-claptrap theories out
there. Just because one or two sensational cases appear to be true
doesn't imply that this is commonplace.

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but my purpose is to issue warnings
not to take any theory of putative parenthood (however novel,
exotic,
dramatic, attractive) seriously *until* it is subjected to the
brutal
glare of scientific and systematic examination.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

Leo van de Pas

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 01 okt 2005 22:24:02

Dear Adrian,

William Carey died in 1528 while Henry VIII was very much alive. If Henry
VIII executes someone because he said he had seen Henry Carey "the son of
the king", wouldn't someone claiming the (not so large) inheritance from
William because William's children were really the king's, also ask to be
executed?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


In a message dated 01/10/2005 17:10:29 GMT Standard Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

"that is the official records do not recognize Henry Carey as being son
of Henry VIII."

Well, of course. And the point is...? Am I missing something here?

Tony





Inheritance, if there was any evidence that Henry was illegitimate, then
who
was William Carey's heir, and would they not attempt to claim their
inheritance?

Adrian


Peter Stewart

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 okt 2005 06:26:48

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:08c001c5c6c5$d1b4c830$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Dear Adrian,

William Carey died in 1528 while Henry VIII was very much alive. If Henry
VIII executes someone because he said he had seen Henry Carey "the son of
the king", wouldn't someone claiming the (not so large) inheritance from
William because William's children were really the king's, also ask to be
executed?

I think this is the wrong way round - Henry VIII did not execute John Hale
because Hale said he had seen the king's son Henry Carey, whereas Hale may
very well have said it because he was about to be executed. This happened
two weeks after the reported statement about Carey.

He was put to death for denying Henry VIII's supremacy as governor of the
Church in England, and the processes for this offense took a lot longer than
two weeks. Hale would have known his overwhelmingly likely sentence and
fate at the time of his appearance before the Council.

Anyone who believed that the pope was supreme in matters spiritual and
canonical within the realm of Henry VIII, and who disapproved of the king's
divorce from Catherine of Aragon, also had a motive for denying &
disparaging the union between Henry and Anne Boleyn. A supposed barrier from
affinity due to the king's prior carnal relationship with her sister Mary
could well have turned into a desperate gambit on Hale's part.

It is scarcely credible to me that, having let this compromising information
out to the extent that a mere vicar of Isleworth knew about it, Henry was
somehow about to put the genie back in the bottle so effectively that the
enemies of his daughter Elizabeth I didn't noisily & endlessly use it
against her.

These people spread evey imaginable tittle-tattle about her, and then some,
across Europe for many decades, considering her a bastard from hell because
of the circumstances of her birth. Why didn't they latch onto the Carey
connection, if this was thought to have any reality behind it?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 okt 2005 15:11:02

Leo,

The "not so large inheritance from William", would include those grants made
by the king to William Carey, supposedly because Henry Carey was the king's
son. I don't know the terms of these gifts, but if these grants were made
for the eventual benefit of Henry Carey and Henry was the king's son, then I
would have expected there would be more than for "William Carey and his heirs"
in the grant, so that Henry Carey would get them, despite any claim that he
was illegitimate. As such eveidence has not been put forward, I presume there
is none. To say that the grants would in any event revert back to the crown
for lack of an heir would be an argument after the facts, ie prediciting
William Carey would not have (another) son.

Regards,
Adrian

Leo wrote;

Dear Adrian,

William Carey died in 1528 while Henry VIII was very much alive. If Henry
VIII executes someone because he said he had seen Henry Carey "the son of
the king", wouldn't someone claiming the (not so large) inheritance from
William because William's children were really the king's, also ask to be
executed?
Leo

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 okt 2005 15:31:01

Dear Leo,
Given the vague reference to the fellow`s disputing the King`s
authority unless He were actively doing other things than saying that Henry
Carey was the King`s son than probably not as apparently Henry VIII didn`t wish
this boy to be thought his son. also if He were Henry`s son wouldn`t it have
been more politically expedient to have married the widowed Mary Carey if She
still lived rather than her sister Anne Boleyn some five years later there
already being a prescedent in place for legitimating one`s illegitimate offspring
and their descendants for all purposes. Clearly Bluff King Hal didn`t himself
believe He had sired Henry Carey and so didn`t recognize him as such.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 okt 2005 18:13:02

In a message dated 10/2/2005 6:30:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

wouldn`t it have
been more politically expedient to have married the widowed Mary Carey if
She
still lived rather than her sister Anne Boleyn some five years later there
already being a prescedent in place for legitimating one`s illegitimate
offspring
and their descendants for all purposes. Clearly Bluff King Hal didn`t
himself
believe He had sired Henry Carey and so didn`t recognize him as such.



Silly. Don't you know that Anne had "bewitched" him by this point? She was
a witch and had cast a spell on him. Wasn't this one of the charges used to
bring her to trial?
Will

Kristie Thompson

Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 02 okt 2005 23:39:02

You make a point, but following this logic, why didn't the King marry Bessie
Blount instead of Anne to legitimize Henry Fitzroy? The fact that he didn't
marry Bessie or Mary in no way means that Henry Carey couldn't be his son.
While I have my doubts that Carey was Henry's son, I am willing to keep an
open mind b/c it was speculated that he was during that time period. It
isn't historians after the fact trying to recreate Carey as Henry's son.
Kristie

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Putative paternity/maternity musings: Danger!


Dear Leo,
Given the vague reference to the fellow`s disputing the
King`s
authority unless He were actively doing other things than saying that
Henry
Carey was the King`s son than probably not as apparently Henry VIII didn`t
wish
this boy to be thought his son. also if He were Henry`s son wouldn`t it
have
been more politically expedient to have married the widowed Mary Carey if
She
still lived rather than her sister Anne Boleyn some five years later there
already being a prescedent in place for legitimating one`s illegitimate
offspring
and their descendants for all purposes. Clearly Bluff King Hal didn`t
himself
believe He had sired Henry Carey and so didn`t recognize him as such.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»