In a posting dated 26 March 2006, Brad Verity wrote his hypothesis on
the children of the 10th Lord Clifford and stated that Elizabeth
Clifford, wife of Sir Ralph Bowes was illegitimate. I descend from
this couple through their great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth
(Mansfield) Wilson of Boston. Others on SGM will note that this couple
is the direct patrilineal line of the late Queen Mother, born Lady
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and therefore ancestral to the modern British
royal family.
I was intrigued by Brad's use of the work "The Shepherd Lord of
Skipton Castle" by Dr. Richard T. Spence (1994), so I bought a copy.
It is a glossy, slim work one might buy in a gift shop. Nonetheless,
Dr. Spence is an historian, uses footnotes, and the work seems to be
reliable.
I wish Brad had cited to the works Dr. Spence used rather than to the
pages of the book. In noting Elizabeth's marriage portion he cites
to p. 33. The paragraph in question is note 46 which is: Dickens, p.
131-2 [Clifford Letters of the Sixteenth Century], Clay, p. 375
[Yorkshire Archaeological Journal xviii (1905):354-411], Books of
Records, II, fol. 528; J. Nicolson and R. Burn, The History and
Antiquities of the Counties of Westmorland and Cumberland, 2 vols.
(1777) I:387; Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, ed. Sir Cuthbert
Sharp (1840), p. 369. Of these sources, most are secondary and written
well past the events. The primary records seem to be the Clifford
Letters and the Books of Records.
It should be noted that Dr. Spence is an historian and not a
genealogist. This is apparent when on p. 43 he notes that the mother
of Henry VII was related to the St. Johns by their common Beauchamp
ancestry. This is true, but it belies how close the relationship was.
Anne St. John, the wife of the 10th Lord Clifford was the niece of the
half-blood of Margaret, countess of Richmond. Dr. Spence also calls
Mabel Clifford, the eldest daughter and notes that she made the best
marriage since her husband would become the Earl of Southampton in 1537
(Spence, p. 42). As Brad points out, in the genealogical chart in this
work Elizabeth Clifford is given as a daughter to the 10th Lord and
Anne St. John. It is Brad's contention that this is incorrect.
One of the reasons he gives is the low marriage portion given to
Elizabeth of 600 marks. In the same paragraph of p. 33 in Spence's
work, daughter Dorothy received 100 marks, and daughter Margaret 500
pounds. Brad fails to equate marks with pounds, but Spence does on p.
16. In 1476, 80 marks was equal to 53 pounds, 6 shillings and 8 pence.
Using round numbers, 80 marks was equal to about 54 pounds and thus a
conversion of .675 works. So 600 marks is the same as 405 pounds.
Therefore, Elizabeth and Margaret got roughly the same amount at
marriage. Note also that Dorothy, the known legitimate daughter of the
10th Lord Clifford by his second wife received far less then either
other daughter.
Spence notes that the 10th Lord Clifford was thrifty and uses words
like parsimony to describe him. It is not unthinkable that Elizabeth
as the eldest daughter, with several more daughters to marry off, got a
smaller dowry. Add to that her marriage dates of between 1505 and 1510
which is when the 10th Lord was made to pay 2,000 pounds in a fine, and
perhaps money was a bit tight.
As for chronology, Richard III died in August of 1485. The 10th
Lord's reemergence under the patronage of Henry VII is noted in
Spence. So, there's no reason to believe he did not marry soon
thereafter and by the end of 1485. A daughter born in 1486
(Elizabeth), named for the Queen as an honor, is certainly
chronologically possible. The rest of the children are born in 1487/8
and thereafter. Spence cites (on p. 25) a draft copy dated 10 January
1587 of the marriage settlement [note 31: Chatsworth, Londesborough
papers, PB/151065/82 and CCR 1500-1509, no. 105.] She is first called
Lady Anne in a document dated 25 July 1587. However, this settlement
may not be an accurate measure of when they married. Lord Clifford,
first had to reassert his control over his lands which had been taken
by the Yorkists. After securing his possessions, the jointure to Lady
Anne is made. There's no reason to believe they were not married
earlier than 1587.
In the final analysis, we have several sources that are contradictory.
In such a case, evidence should be sought that is affirmative of the
age of Elizabeth Clifford, her exact marriage date, the exact marriage
date of her parents, or some other document noting her relationship
with her mother. It seems only that the 1505 Henry VII relations
pedigree fails to mention her and it stands in opposition to all other
sources. I find Mr. Verity's use of Dr. Spence's book to bolster
such an argument unpersuasive.
Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
sources. I find Mr. Verity's use of Dr. Spence's book to bolster
such an argument unpersuasive.
Yes. I see no reason she need be illegitimate --
-
Brad Verity
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
Dear Martin,
Comments interspersed.
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Yes, also that Margaret Clifford, wife of Sir Cuthbert Ratcliffe, may
have been illegitimate too.
Thank you for explaining this upfront.
Not, curiously enough, through the Bowes line however, as the couple's
only son, Sir George Bowes of Streatlam Castle, died without any sons.
Yes, Dr. Spence wrote his doctorate thesis on the Cliffords. I believe
it is Skipton Castle that actually had the book published.
I did in my follow-up post on March 27th.
I have a copy of that vwork, and it is not the source for Elizabeth's
marriage portion, or the other two marriage portions that Spence
mentions.
I also have a copy of the Clay article, and same as above.
I have not seen the above three sources.
The Clifford Letters do not mention any marriage portions.
Lady Anne Clifford, writing in the following century, calls Mabel the
eldest daughter, and many subsequent works have followed suit.
It is my contention that it could be incorrect. I agree that Dr.
Spence is not clear at all on the 10th Lord's daughters. On page 27,
he states of the children of the 10th Lord and Anne St. John: "Their
second son, another Henry, born in 1493, survived as did Thomas, Mabel,
Eleanor, Anne and Joan." He doesn't cite a source for this, nor
explain where the daughters Elizabeth and Margaret came from.
Thank you for that. It helps.
Dorothy was married in 1528 (Spence - p. 42), five years after the 10th
Lord died in 1523. So either the 10th Lord arranged her marriage
before he died, or the Dorothy who received 100 marks for her marriage
was yet another daughter. The source that Spence got these marriage
portions from needs to be checked. I have a feeling though that it is
the unpublished Books of Records manuscripts in the Cumbria County
Records office.
Yes, the above could explain a smaller dowry. It would be nice to know
what the marriage portions for Joan, Mabel and Anne were, but those may
not have survived.
I disagree here - see below.
Only if the Clifford marriage is pushed back.
A settlement is made at the time of marriage. It is the guarantee to
the bride of what will be hers should she survive her husband. I don't
think that the King and his mother the Countess of Richmond would have
allowed her niece Anne to marry a year-and-a-half prior to a settlement
being made. A date of January 1487 of a draft of the settlement,
followed by a date of July 1487 for Anne to first be called Lady Anne
Clifford in a document indicates a marriage date of 1487, just as
Spence deduced.
Yes, there is reason to believe they were not married earlier than
1487. Securing his lands would not have taken a year-and-a-half. The
king would send word out to the escheators of the counties that the
lands were now in possession of Lord Clifford. There is no record of
any resistance to his seisin, so we're talking weeks at the most, for
the process, not months and months.
Yes, full agreement.
Full agreement here too. The Books of Records in the Cumbria County
record office (if that is indeed the source that records the marriage
portions) would hopefully provide the exact date of Elizabeth's
marriage. I don't know if there is any source that would give her
birthdate, or the birthdate of any of the Clifford children. Perhaps
if Household record books that survive mention them, it is possible to
deduce estimated birthdates from when they first appear in the records.
As for the marriage date of her parents, I tend to agree with Dr.
Spence that it was in early 1487, but if a more exact date can be
discovered, terrific.
Yet it is a strong opposition, since it is the only source so far that
is contemporary to the lifetime of the 10th Lord, Lady Anne and
Elizabeth herself.
That's absolutely your right. Though you have provided an alternate
chronology, which includes pushing back the marriage date of Anne and
the 10th Lord (which I find unpersuasive, as it is speculation with no
documentation to back it up), you have not provided an explanation as
to why Elizabeth and Margaret were left off of an otherwise accurate
pedigree of the Clifford children.
But thank you for taking the time to look into this question. It is an
intriguing one which I agree needs further research before any
conclusions can be reached.
Cheers, ----------Brad
Comments interspersed.
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
In a posting dated 26 March 2006, Brad Verity wrote his hypothesis on
the children of the 10th Lord Clifford and stated that Elizabeth
Clifford, wife of Sir Ralph Bowes was illegitimate.
Yes, also that Margaret Clifford, wife of Sir Cuthbert Ratcliffe, may
have been illegitimate too.
I descend from
this couple through their great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth
(Mansfield) Wilson of Boston.
Thank you for explaining this upfront.
Others on SGM will note that this couple
is the direct patrilineal line of the late Queen Mother, born Lady
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and therefore ancestral to the modern British
royal family.
Not, curiously enough, through the Bowes line however, as the couple's
only son, Sir George Bowes of Streatlam Castle, died without any sons.
I was intrigued by Brad's use of the work "The Shepherd Lord of
Skipton Castle" by Dr. Richard T. Spence (1994), so I bought a copy.
It is a glossy, slim work one might buy in a gift shop. Nonetheless,
Dr. Spence is an historian, uses footnotes, and the work seems to be
reliable.
Yes, Dr. Spence wrote his doctorate thesis on the Cliffords. I believe
it is Skipton Castle that actually had the book published.
I wish Brad had cited to the works Dr. Spence used rather than to the
pages of the book.
I did in my follow-up post on March 27th.
In noting Elizabeth's marriage portion he cites
to p. 33. The paragraph in question is note 46 which is: Dickens, p.
131-2 [Clifford Letters of the Sixteenth Century],
I have a copy of that vwork, and it is not the source for Elizabeth's
marriage portion, or the other two marriage portions that Spence
mentions.
Clay, p. 375
[Yorkshire Archaeological Journal xviii (1905):354-411],
I also have a copy of the Clay article, and same as above.
Books of
Records, II, fol. 528; J. Nicolson and R. Burn, The History and
Antiquities of the Counties of Westmorland and Cumberland, 2 vols.
(1777) I:387; Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, ed. Sir Cuthbert
Sharp (1840), p. 369.
I have not seen the above three sources.
Of these sources, most are secondary and written
well past the events. The primary records seem to be the Clifford
Letters and the Books of Records.
The Clifford Letters do not mention any marriage portions.
It should be noted that Dr. Spence is an historian and not a
genealogist. This is apparent when on p. 43 he notes that the mother
of Henry VII was related to the St. Johns by their common Beauchamp
ancestry. This is true, but it belies how close the relationship was.
Anne St. John, the wife of the 10th Lord Clifford was the niece of the
half-blood of Margaret, countess of Richmond. Dr. Spence also calls
Mabel Clifford, the eldest daughter and notes that she made the best
marriage since her husband would become the Earl of Southampton in 1537
(Spence, p. 42).
Lady Anne Clifford, writing in the following century, calls Mabel the
eldest daughter, and many subsequent works have followed suit.
As Brad points out, in the genealogical chart in this
work Elizabeth Clifford is given as a daughter to the 10th Lord and
Anne St. John. It is Brad's contention that this is incorrect.
It is my contention that it could be incorrect. I agree that Dr.
Spence is not clear at all on the 10th Lord's daughters. On page 27,
he states of the children of the 10th Lord and Anne St. John: "Their
second son, another Henry, born in 1493, survived as did Thomas, Mabel,
Eleanor, Anne and Joan." He doesn't cite a source for this, nor
explain where the daughters Elizabeth and Margaret came from.
One of the reasons he gives is the low marriage portion given to
Elizabeth of 600 marks. In the same paragraph of p. 33 in Spence's
work, daughter Dorothy received 100 marks, and daughter Margaret 500
pounds. Brad fails to equate marks with pounds, but Spence does on p.
16. In 1476, 80 marks was equal to 53 pounds, 6 shillings and 8 pence.
Using round numbers, 80 marks was equal to about 54 pounds and thus a
conversion of .675 works. So 600 marks is the same as 405 pounds.
Thank you for that. It helps.
Therefore, Elizabeth and Margaret got roughly the same amount at
marriage. Note also that Dorothy, the known legitimate daughter of the
10th Lord Clifford by his second wife received far less then either
other daughter.
Dorothy was married in 1528 (Spence - p. 42), five years after the 10th
Lord died in 1523. So either the 10th Lord arranged her marriage
before he died, or the Dorothy who received 100 marks for her marriage
was yet another daughter. The source that Spence got these marriage
portions from needs to be checked. I have a feeling though that it is
the unpublished Books of Records manuscripts in the Cumbria County
Records office.
Spence notes that the 10th Lord Clifford was thrifty and uses words
like parsimony to describe him. It is not unthinkable that Elizabeth
as the eldest daughter, with several more daughters to marry off, got a
smaller dowry. Add to that her marriage dates of between 1505 and 1510
which is when the 10th Lord was made to pay 2,000 pounds in a fine, and
perhaps money was a bit tight.
Yes, the above could explain a smaller dowry. It would be nice to know
what the marriage portions for Joan, Mabel and Anne were, but those may
not have survived.
As for chronology, Richard III died in August of 1485. The 10th
Lord's reemergence under the patronage of Henry VII is noted in
Spence. So, there's no reason to believe he did not marry soon
thereafter and by the end of 1485.
I disagree here - see below.
daughter born in 1486
(Elizabeth), named for the Queen as an honor, is certainly
chronologically possible.
Only if the Clifford marriage is pushed back.
he rest of the children are born in 1487/8
and thereafter. Spence cites (on p. 25) a draft copy dated 10 January
1587 of the marriage settlement [note 31: Chatsworth, Londesborough
papers, PB/151065/82 and CCR 1500-1509, no. 105.] She is first called
Lady Anne in a document dated 25 July 1587. However, this settlement
may not be an accurate measure of when they married.
A settlement is made at the time of marriage. It is the guarantee to
the bride of what will be hers should she survive her husband. I don't
think that the King and his mother the Countess of Richmond would have
allowed her niece Anne to marry a year-and-a-half prior to a settlement
being made. A date of January 1487 of a draft of the settlement,
followed by a date of July 1487 for Anne to first be called Lady Anne
Clifford in a document indicates a marriage date of 1487, just as
Spence deduced.
Lord Clifford,
first had to reassert his control over his lands which had been taken
by the Yorkists. After securing his possessions, the jointure to Lady
Anne is made. There's no reason to believe they were not married
earlier than 1587.
Yes, there is reason to believe they were not married earlier than
1487. Securing his lands would not have taken a year-and-a-half. The
king would send word out to the escheators of the counties that the
lands were now in possession of Lord Clifford. There is no record of
any resistance to his seisin, so we're talking weeks at the most, for
the process, not months and months.
In the final analysis, we have several sources that are contradictory.
Yes, full agreement.
In such a case, evidence should be sought that is affirmative of the
age of Elizabeth Clifford, her exact marriage date, the exact marriage
date of her parents, or some other document noting her relationship
with her mother.
Full agreement here too. The Books of Records in the Cumbria County
record office (if that is indeed the source that records the marriage
portions) would hopefully provide the exact date of Elizabeth's
marriage. I don't know if there is any source that would give her
birthdate, or the birthdate of any of the Clifford children. Perhaps
if Household record books that survive mention them, it is possible to
deduce estimated birthdates from when they first appear in the records.
As for the marriage date of her parents, I tend to agree with Dr.
Spence that it was in early 1487, but if a more exact date can be
discovered, terrific.
It seems only that the 1505 Henry VII relations
pedigree fails to mention her and it stands in opposition to all other
sources.
Yet it is a strong opposition, since it is the only source so far that
is contemporary to the lifetime of the 10th Lord, Lady Anne and
Elizabeth herself.
I find Mr. Verity's use of Dr. Spence's book to bolster
such an argument unpersuasive.
That's absolutely your right. Though you have provided an alternate
chronology, which includes pushing back the marriage date of Anne and
the 10th Lord (which I find unpersuasive, as it is speculation with no
documentation to back it up), you have not provided an explanation as
to why Elizabeth and Margaret were left off of an otherwise accurate
pedigree of the Clifford children.
But thank you for taking the time to look into this question. It is an
intriguing one which I agree needs further research before any
conclusions can be reached.
Cheers, ----------Brad
-
John Brandon
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
Brad Verity wrote:
Ah, yes, that old piece of junk. I think you are relying too heavily
on this document (which is probably flawed).
documentation to back it up), you have not provided an explanation as
to why Elizabeth and Margaret were left off of an otherwise accurate
pedigree of the Clifford children.
Ah, yes, that old piece of junk. I think you are relying too heavily
on this document (which is probably flawed).
-
John Brandon
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
Why is this "old piece of junk" probably flawed? What evidence can you
provide that it is in error? Do you know of a document that names Elizabeth
Documents from that time period can be notably unreliable (especially
dealing with families this far north of the center of power) ...
-
Brad Verity
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com
Ah, yes, that old piece of junk. I think you are relying too heavily
on this document (which is probably flawed).
Why is this "old piece of junk" probably flawed? What evidence can you
provide that it is in error? Do you know of a document that names Elizabeth
or Margaret as Anne St. John's daughters? If so, great, then we have a
conclusion.
Cheers, ---------Brad
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
-
Gjest
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
The House of Clifford page 85 confirms Anne St. John is the Mother
Elizabeth m 1st Ralph Bowes m 2nd William Tongue
Henry
Thomas
Mabel
Elizabeth
Eleanor
Anne
Dorothy (daughter of 2nd wife Florence Pudsey) m Sir Hugh Lowther
my Ancestor
Brendan Wilson
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
Elizabeth m 1st Ralph Bowes m 2nd William Tongue
Henry
Thomas
Mabel
Elizabeth
Eleanor
Anne
Dorothy (daughter of 2nd wife Florence Pudsey) m Sir Hugh Lowther
my Ancestor
Brendan Wilson
Why is this "old piece of junk" probably flawed? What evidence can you
provide that it is in error? Do you know of a document that names Elizabeth
or Margaret as Anne St. John's daughters? If so, great, then we have a
conclusion.
Cheers, ---------Brad
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
-
Brad Verity
Re: Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
Dear Brendan,
Though 'The House of Clifford: From Before the Conquest' by Hugh
Clifford (Chichester, Sussex: Phillimore, 1987) is an improvement over
previous secondary sources on the Clifford family, especially the
medieval era, it is not without error.
For example, Margaret Clifford, wife of Sir Cuthbert Ratcliffe, is not
listed as a daughter of the 10th Lord Clifford but rather Ratcliffe is
given as the second husband of Margaret Clifford, countess of Derby,
daughter of the 2nd Earl of Cumberland (p. 91).
Another example is Dorothy Clifford is made to be a daughter of the
10th Lord and Anne St. John, not Florence Pudsey (p. 85).
The author Clifford is the first secondary source to get Elizabeth
Clifford's marriages (1st to Bowes, then to Tonge) correct. Here is
what he says (p. 85):
"2. ELIZABETH, married first Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam, who died in
1516. One of her great-great-great-great-grand-daughters was Mary
Eleanor Bowes, who married John Lyon, 9th Earl of Strathmore, who took
the additional surname of Bowes since Mary Eleanor was the last of her
line. John and Mary Eleanor were two of the
great-great-great-grandparents of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. In
this way the Shepherd Lord is twice over a direct ancestor of the
present Queen and her children and grandchildren. Elizabeth married
second, William Tongue."
Yet even in the above there is error. Elizabeth Clifford and Sir Ralph
Bowes were not ancestors of Mary Eleanor Bowes. Rather she is
descended from Richard Bowes (d. 1558), younger brother of Sir Ralph.
So as proof that Elizabeth was daughter of Anne St. John (and note that
author Clifford makes her the second daughter, keeping Mabel as eldest
daughter), we cannot use 'House of Clifford', which cites no sources
for the information it gives on any of the 10th Lord's children.
Cheers, ----------Brad
The House of Clifford page 85 confirms Anne St. John is the Mother
Elizabeth m 1st Ralph Bowes m 2nd William Tongue
Henry
Thomas
Mabel
Elizabeth
Eleanor
Anne
Dorothy (daughter of 2nd wife Florence Pudsey) m Sir Hugh Lowther
my Ancestor
Dear Brendan,
Though 'The House of Clifford: From Before the Conquest' by Hugh
Clifford (Chichester, Sussex: Phillimore, 1987) is an improvement over
previous secondary sources on the Clifford family, especially the
medieval era, it is not without error.
For example, Margaret Clifford, wife of Sir Cuthbert Ratcliffe, is not
listed as a daughter of the 10th Lord Clifford but rather Ratcliffe is
given as the second husband of Margaret Clifford, countess of Derby,
daughter of the 2nd Earl of Cumberland (p. 91).
Another example is Dorothy Clifford is made to be a daughter of the
10th Lord and Anne St. John, not Florence Pudsey (p. 85).
The author Clifford is the first secondary source to get Elizabeth
Clifford's marriages (1st to Bowes, then to Tonge) correct. Here is
what he says (p. 85):
"2. ELIZABETH, married first Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam, who died in
1516. One of her great-great-great-great-grand-daughters was Mary
Eleanor Bowes, who married John Lyon, 9th Earl of Strathmore, who took
the additional surname of Bowes since Mary Eleanor was the last of her
line. John and Mary Eleanor were two of the
great-great-great-grandparents of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. In
this way the Shepherd Lord is twice over a direct ancestor of the
present Queen and her children and grandchildren. Elizabeth married
second, William Tongue."
Yet even in the above there is error. Elizabeth Clifford and Sir Ralph
Bowes were not ancestors of Mary Eleanor Bowes. Rather she is
descended from Richard Bowes (d. 1558), younger brother of Sir Ralph.
So as proof that Elizabeth was daughter of Anne St. John (and note that
author Clifford makes her the second daughter, keeping Mabel as eldest
daughter), we cannot use 'House of Clifford', which cites no sources
for the information it gives on any of the 10th Lord's children.
Cheers, ----------Brad