A delightful discovery!

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Martin Reboul

A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 19 sep 2004 17:30:48

Visited the Tower for the first time in a third of a century the other day, and
after some mild cursing about not being able to examine tha crime scene (the
Bloody Tower being bloody shut!), was absolutely delighted to find something
that I had no idea existed, in the chapel of St Peter ad Vincula.

In the corner at the back, unmarked, unsignposted and without any inscription
was a marble funeral effigy, clearly C15, a somewhat severe and grim looking
fellow with two wives (I assumed), under a rather elaborate and ornate canopy. I
was strangely drawn to this, and (to my delight) saw an heraldic shield painted
with the arms of Salisbury/Montagu (three red diamonds on white quartered with a
black bird), and another of an inverted red 'V' on (what is now) a dark brown
background which I was not so familiar with, but suspected might be Stafford.

He had (what looked like) a lion at his feet, as did the middle wife, and the
other had what appeared to be two dogs at hers. The man had died in a state of
grace, and was wearing a ducal coronet. The three looked very sombre (as I
suppose you do when dead for centuries), and were distinctly unattractive, but
he was something special, in fact I would go as far as to say 'chilling'. Of
course, the blank, white marble eyes (open) didn't help, but his wide, heavy,
jowly jaw, grim line of a mouth, and cruel, hooky nose, led me to believe this
was not only an accurate representation of someone in particular (this was
'quality stuff' by C15 standards), whoever it was had been an ugly brute by the
standards of any age. He wasn't wearing armour either, just a long, flowing
robe, so I assumed he was probably a cleric (there was, I thought, a slight
resemblance to Cardinal Beaufort).

Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was shooed out by
an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was astonished to
hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable of the
Tower and the inventive fellow who introduced (some say invented) the first rack
ever seen in England, known fondly by Londoners as 'The Duke of Exeter's
Daughter'. I had no idea any image of him existed until that moment.

I checked up later, and sure enough, he married at least twice - Ann de Stafford
(check) and Anne de Montagu (check). Also some say Brites, Bastard of Portugal
(unusual name - mysterious lady, a widow I believe), but she must have either
dropped off the end or lies elsewhere - no trace of her on the memorial that I
saw .

Unfortunately I didn't have long to examine it, and you can only get into the
chapel under heavy supervision. I blew it completely at this point by asking one
of the guards if I could nip in and get a photo of the Duke, only to be informed
gravely "no photography allowed in the chapel!" in a most positive and
uncompromising manner. Bad move being honest, for as I waited to tag onto the
next tour, digital camera concealed carefully in 'surveillance' mode, his beady
eyes never left me for a moment, so I gave up before being ejected at the point
of a halberd.

There appear to be no images or photos of this grim trio or their monument on
the net anywhere, certainly no postcards (not exactly 'cheerful')... does anyone
out there have anything I wonder?

My particular interest is not actually Duke John, but his son Henry (almost as
unpleasant as his 'daughter'!), who commanded the Lancastrian rearward at the
battle of Barnet (my personal 'special interest').

Until now, I had no clues at all as to what he might have looked like, only
various accounts of his terrible temper, reckless behaviour, penchant for
violence, great bitterness at having been exiled and forced to beg barefoot, and
thirst for revenge ("cruell and fierce" said the Milanese ambassador).

Although nothing is certain, if Henry resembled either his father or mother, he
must have been just how I always idly imagined him - an ugly brute, with a
thuggish, battered face, cruel mouth and blazing eyes. He has no known portrait,
and no funeral monument, as he lies somewhere at the bottom of the channel after
'falling overboard' during a crossing (with some encouragement it seems) in the
late 1470's...

I am no expert in heraldry, so I'm not quite sure which wife was which (was
there any convention on second wives being placed next to, or on the outside on
such effigies?). I was also curious as to why John wasn't wearing armour, as he
fought at Agincourt (some say) and elsewhere in France, and was a knight of
course. He died in 1447, apparently poisoned, though I have no details about
that either... anyone?

Cheers
Martin

D. Spencer Hines

John Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable Of The Tower

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2004 17:30:49

Bingo!

Chris Phillips has it right.

As any proper fool should know, particularly a Brit, John Holand, who
died in 1447, was THIRD Duke of Exeter -- not the SECOND.

Further, he reportedly died of natural causes at age 51or 52 on 5
August 1447 -- and was NOT POISONED. His father, named John de Holand,
the FIRST Duke of Exeter, was executed on 9 or 10 Jan 1399/1400 and his
head was set on London Bridge while his body was buried at the
Collegiate Church at Pleshy.

All one need do is consult CP for these data.

Educating these ill-taught Brits on British History would be a full-time
job for a gaggle of proper scholars -- make no doubt about it.

John Holand, the man who would become the THIRD Duke of Exeter on 6 Jan
1443/1444, was appointed Constable of the Tower on 20 August 1420 and
was buried in the Church of St. Katherine by the Tower.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Britannicus Traductus Sum.

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:cikihh$lpb$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

| Martin Reboul wrote:
| > Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was
shooed
| out by
| > an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was
| astonished to
| > hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter,
Constable of
| the
| > Tower

<baldersnip>

| According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first
wife Anne
| de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the
church
| of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with
her
| first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at
Arundel.
|
| The suvival of the funeral monument is not mentioned by CP, but there
is a
| quotation from John's will, specifying that his body is "to be buryed
in a
| chappell' wtin the chirch' of seynt Kateryns besyde the Tour' of
London'
| atte north'ende of the high' auter' in a tombe that is ordeyned for me
wt
| Anne my first wyff and wt my suster Custaunce and wt my wyff' Anne tht
now
| is."
|
| If the duke's wishes were carried out, perhaps the monument was
salvaged and
| transferred to the Tower when St Katherine's was demolished in the
early
| 19th century. It would be nice to know for sure.
|
| Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 19 sep 2004 20:15:47

Martin Reboul wrote:
Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was shooed
out by
an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was
astonished to
hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable of
the
Tower and the inventive fellow who introduced (some say invented) the
first rack
ever seen in England, known fondly by Londoners as 'The Duke of Exeter's
Daughter'. I had no idea any image of him existed until that moment.

I checked up later, and sure enough, he married at least twice - Ann de
Stafford
(check) and Anne de Montagu (check). Also some say Brites, Bastard of
Portugal
(unusual name - mysterious lady, a widow I believe), but she must have
either
dropped off the end or lies elsewhere - no trace of her on the memorial
that I
saw .

According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first wife Anne
de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the church
of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with her
first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at Arundel.

The suvival of the funeral monument is not mentioned by CP, but there is a
quotation from John's will, specifying that his body is "to be buryed in a
chappell' wtin the chirch' of seynt Kateryns besyde the Tour' of London'
atte north'ende of the high' auter' in a tombe that is ordeyned for me wt
Anne my first wyff and wt my suster Custaunce and wt my wyff' Anne tht now
is."

If the duke's wishes were carried out, perhaps the monument was salvaged and
transferred to the Tower when St Katherine's was demolished in the early
19th century. It would be nice to know for sure.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 19 sep 2004 22:27:32

Adrian Channing wrote:
The _Blue Guide, London_ states: Tower of London ... Chapel Royal of St.
Peter ad Vincula, rebuilt 1307 and restored in 1512, and again in 1971 ...
In the
N aisle is the sumptuous monument of the Duke of Exeter (1447), formerly
in
St. Katharine's, Regent's Park.

Thanks for that explanation.

Since posting earlier, I see that Mervyn Blatch, "A guide to London's
churches" (1978), p. 405, says that the monument was "moved to St Peter's
from Regent's Park Royal Foundation in 1949."

The Foundation in Regent's Park was the successor to St Katharine's by the
Tower after its demolition in 1825. "After the 2nd World War" it returned to
the East End, to the site of a bombed church in Butcher Row [Weinreb and
Hibbert, The London Encyclopaedia]. Presumably this was when the monument
was transferred to the Tower.

Chris Phillips

Martin Reboul

Re: John Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable Of The Tower

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 19 sep 2004 23:09:32

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5uk3d.164$qH4.3088@eagle.america.net...
Bingo!

Chris Phillips has it right.

As any proper fool should know, particularly a Brit, John Holand, who
died in 1447, was THIRD Duke of Exeter -- not the SECOND.

Well David, as a universally recognised Fool of longstanding repute, you are
right - my mistake... two Johns, and much excitement. Not that it matters
particularly for my purpose, I have always been aware that Henry was the last D
of Exeter.

Further, he reportedly died of natural causes at age 51or 52 on 5
August 1447 -- and was NOT POISONED.

Ahem, have you seen his post mortem report? I thought not. He died rather
suddenly from an unknown malady, and since he was so incredibly unpopular,
poisoning was suspected. Nobody knows of course, not that it really matters.

His father, named John de Holand,
the FIRST Duke of Exeter, was executed on 9 or 10 Jan 1399/1400 and his
head was set on London Bridge while his body was buried at the
Collegiate Church at Pleshy.

All one need do is consult CP for these data.

Actually, all one ever needed to do to learn this was to read a few coffee table
books, which I did many years ago before moving on to more serious tomes. .

Educating these ill-taught Brits on British History would be a full-time
job for a gaggle of proper scholars -- make no doubt about it.

Thank you for your gracious and kindly mention of these facts David, if I ever
become a real Fool like you I will not make such elementary mistakes I suppose,
but for now I can live with the shame quite comfortably.
Cheers
Martin








John Holand, the man who would become the THIRD Duke of Exeter on 6 Jan
1443/1444, was appointed Constable of the Tower on 20 August 1420 and
was buried in the Church of St. Katherine by the Tower.
| Martin Reboul wrote:
| > Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was
shooed
| out by
| > an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was
| astonished to
| > hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter,
Constable of
| the
| > Tower

baldersnip

| According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first
wife Anne
| de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the
church
| of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with
her
| first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at
Arundel.
|
| The suvival of the funeral monument is not mentioned by CP, but there
is a
| quotation from John's will, specifying that his body is "to be buryed
in a
| chappell' wtin the chirch' of seynt Kateryns besyde the Tour' of
London'
| atte north'ende of the high' auter' in a tombe that is ordeyned for me
wt
| Anne my first wyff and wt my suster Custaunce and wt my wyff' Anne tht
now
| is."
|
| If the duke's wishes were carried out, perhaps the monument was
salvaged and
| transferred to the Tower when St Katherine's was demolished in the
early
| 19th century. It would be nice to know for sure.
|
| Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2004 23:19:31

In a message dated 19/09/04 19:31:09 GMT Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Martin Reboul wrote:
Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was shooed
out by
an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was
astonished to
hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable of
the
Tower and the inventive fellow who introduced (some say invented) the
first rack
ever seen in England, known fondly by Londoners as 'The Duke of Exeter's
Daughter'. I had no idea any image of him existed until that moment.

I checked up later, and sure enough, he married at least twice - Ann de
Stafford
(check) and Anne de Montagu (check). Also some say Brites, Bastard of
Portugal
(unusual name - mysterious lady, a widow I believe), but she must have
either
dropped off the end or lies elsewhere - no trace of her on the memorial
that I
saw .




Chris Phillips replied;

According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first wife
Anne
de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the church
of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with her
first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at Arundel.

The suvival of the funeral monument is not mentioned by CP, but there is a
quotation from John's will, specifying that his body is "to be buryed in a
chappell' wtin the chirch' of seynt Kateryns besyde the Tour' of London'
atte north'ende of the high' auter' in a tombe that is ordeyned for me wt
Anne my first wyff and wt my suster Custaunce and wt my wyff' Anne tht now
is."

If the duke's wishes were carried out, perhaps the monument was salvaged and
transferred to the Tower when St Katherine's was demolished in the early
19th century. It would be nice to know for sure.




The _Blue Guide, London_ states: Tower of London ... Chapel Royal of St.
Peter ad Vincula, rebuilt 1307 and restored in 1512, and again in 1971 ... In the
N aisle is the sumptuous monument of the Duke of Exeter (1447), formerly in
St. Katharine's, Regent's Park.

Adrian

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 19 sep 2004 23:56:49

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:cikihh$lpb$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Martin Reboul wrote:
Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but inevitably was shooed
out by
an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who it was, and was
astonished to
hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable of
the
Tower and the inventive fellow who introduced (some say invented) the
first rack
ever seen in England, known fondly by Londoners as 'The Duke of Exeter's
Daughter'. I had no idea any image of him existed until that moment.

I checked up later, and sure enough, he married at least twice - Ann de
Stafford
(check) and Anne de Montagu (check). Also some say Brites, Bastard of
Portugal
(unusual name - mysterious lady, a widow I believe), but she must have
either
dropped off the end or lies elsewhere - no trace of her on the memorial
that I
saw .

According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first wife Anne
de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the church
of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with her
first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at Arundel.

The suvival of the funeral monument is not mentioned by CP, but there is a
quotation from John's will, specifying that his body is "to be buryed in a
chappell' wtin the chirch' of seynt Kateryns besyde the Tour' of London'
atte north'ende of the high' auter' in a tombe that is ordeyned for me wt
Anne my first wyff and wt my suster Custaunce and wt my wyff' Anne tht now
is."

If the duke's wishes were carried out, perhaps the monument was salvaged and
transferred to the Tower when St Katherine's was demolished in the early
19th century. It would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks for that Chris. On the side of it (well, at the 'foot' end) is a large,
very modern tablet, stating that it had been 'donated' and giving thanks to
someone or other who had paid for it etc. etc., though I paid little attention
as it didn't say anything useful, such as why, when or even whose memorial it
was! I had little time, and was keen to see the thing itself (which there was
little indication that tablet was even connected with). There is no information
plaque, and nothing in the guide book I believe.

I had a brief discussion with the Warder about it (not always the best source of
accurate historical info I realise), and he told me that the bodies were not
there, and the memorial had been moved several times over the years before
ending up in St Peter ad Vincula's quite recently. No easy task, as it must be a
good 20 foot high, the figures look almost full size and the ornate, gothic
canopy (beautifully carved) must weigh tons.

It was probably gilded and painted, there are traces here and there, but the two
heraldic shields (about four or five inches long I'd guess, mounted on the
underside of the canopy), are somewhat faded, but stand out from the pale
stone - I suspect they have been retouched, but not for a considerable time by
the look of them. I assume the dark brown background of the Stafford arms was
originally yellow.

It looks as if this memorial was indeed salvaged and preserved, and am very
thankful for that. I was rather surprised (considering the Duke's fearsome
reputation and notoriety) that he isn't pointed out as 'the Constable of the
Tower who introduced England to the rack' by tour guides, as he certainly looks
the part, and how! Quite the most grim, menacing and intimidating funeral effigy
I have ever seen - I was not disappointed...

I asked the Warder about this, and he said "well, I like to keep it a bit
upbeat and not depress everyone *too* much..."

I saw his point, as the scaffold where so many met their ends is just outside
the chapel, and the bodies of many who died their lie within its walls (with or
without heads). Only few yards from the spot where Exeter's memorial now sits,
some of the most appallingly bodged, tragic and dismal executions ever known
took place, a place of horror dread and misery for centuries. I expect he'd feel
quite at home!

Well worth seeing - a splendid piece of carving, and as I said before, quite
chilling - his menace has lasted well. No wonder his wives look so grim, he
really doesn't look like 'good company' at all. I'm sure Beatrice looks much
happier....
Cheers
Martin

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 00:23:57

"Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:R7i3d.609075$Gx4.164056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> says in
news:ICh3d.2202$Sb1.1705@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

Visited the Tower

Which tower

for the first time in a third of a
century

Which century.

the other day

Which day? lol.

, and after some mild cursing about
not being able to examine tha crime scene (the Bloody Tower
being bloody shut!)

Bloody Tower?

You have enough evidence there Philip - have a guess! :¬)

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 sep 2004 01:06:29

In message of 19 Sep, "Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote:

"Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:R7i3d.609075$Gx4.164056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> says in
news:ICh3d.2202$Sb1.1705@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

Visited the Tower

Which tower

for the first time in a third of a
century

Which century.

the other day

Which day? lol.

, and after some mild cursing about
not being able to examine tha crime scene (the Bloody Tower
being bloody shut!)

Bloody Tower?

You have enough evidence there Philip - have a guess! :¬)

Warning: this has been cross-posted to the medieval history group.

Whenever anyone does this in the past, it leads to extraneous matter on
s.g.m that has no relevance and tends to distress the more serious of
contributors here. Accordingly I have removed the cross-posting and set
follow-ups to s.g.m only. But if anyone replies to the original, this
is a waste of my time!

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

D. Spencer Hines

Re: John Holand [1395/6-1447], 3rd Duke of Exeter, Constable

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2004 12:41:06

| ...To call him the third Duke of Exeter would clearly be
| wrong, as counting starts with each creation....
| JSG

Dead Wrong...

As is quite common for Gordo.

CP has John Holand [1395/6-1447] as the THIRD Duke of Exeter. He is
also the FIRST Duke of Exeter of the THIRD Creation. Vide CP V:205

Gordo needs to get himself to a library in New York City [not too far
from his home] and read CP Volume V, sub nomine _Exeter_ -- if he is too
cheap to have bought it for himself.

Simplified For Gordo:

John Holand, the father of the John Holand above, was the FIRST Duke of
Exeter and the FIRST [and only] Duke of Exeter of the FIRST Creation.

Thomas Beaufort, the half-uncle of John Holand [1395/6-1447] was the
SECOND Duke of Essex and the FIRST [and only] Duke of Exeter of the
SECOND Creation.

John Holand [1395/6-1447] is the THIRD Duke of Exeter. He is also the
FIRST Duke of Exeter of the THIRD Creation.

Henry Holand, son of the previous John Holand, was the FOURTH [and last]
Duke of Exeter and the SECOND Duke of Exeter of the THIRD Creation.

------Cordon Sanitaire--------------

"Henry, the son of John (d. 1447), was the second duke of the third
creation or the third duke of the Holland line (take your choice). He
was attainted in 1461. I have never seen him referred to as the fourth
duke." [JSG]

Twaddle & Codswallop From Gordo.

------Cordon Sanitaire--------------

CP refers to Henry Holand [or Holland] as the FOURTH Duke of Exeter.
Vide CP V:212.

Gordo = Stultus Disarmatus Reductus...

And DEAD WRONG.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uZz3d.265$3Y3.1191385@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

| ...To call him the third Duke of Exeter would clearly be
| wrong, as counting starts with each creation....
| JSG

John Steele Gordon

Re: John Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable Of The Tower

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 20 sep 2004 14:23:54

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5uk3d.164$qH4.3088@eagle.america.net...
Bingo!

Chris Phillips has it right.

As any proper fool should know, particularly a Brit, John Holand, who
died in 1447, was THIRD Duke of Exeter -- not the SECOND.

I think that, technically at least, that he was the 1st Duke of Exeter of
the third creation.

The first creation was his father, John Holland, in 1397. But after Richard
II was deposed, he was stripped of the dukedom and reverted to being Earl of
Huntingdon. Henry IV had him executed in 1400 and a few months later his
lands and titles were forfeited when he was attainted. End of the first
creation.

The second creation was in 1416, when Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, was
made Duke of Exeter for life only. He died in 1426. End of the second
creation.

About the time that Thomas Beaufort was created Duke of Exeter, John
Holland, son of the first duke, was allowed to take his father's earldom of
Huntingdon. In 1444 he was created Duke of Exeter by Henry VI. This was the
third creation, not a resumption upon revocation of the attainder.

To call him the second Duke of Exeter, based on his father's having been the
first, is not, strictly speaking, correct, but close enough for government
work it seems to me. To call him the third Duke of Exeter would clearly be
wrong, as counting starts with each creation.

Henry, the son of John (d. 1447), was the second duke of the third creation
or the third duke of the Holland line (take your choice). He was attainted
in 1461. I have never seen him referred to as the fourth duke. He was,
however, certainly the last Duke of Exeter.

Whatever. But the next time I'm in London, the Chapel of St. Peter ad
Vincula will be high on my list of places to see. The effigy of the
not-so-good duke sounds fascinating.

JSG

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 20 sep 2004 15:58:53

Brites, bastard of Portugal is the other Beatriz, this
one being daughter of King John I of Portugal.

fa

--- Martin Reboul <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net>
escreveu:
Visited the Tower for the first time in a third of a
century the other day, and
after some mild cursing about not being able to
examine tha crime scene (the
Bloody Tower being bloody shut!), was absolutely
delighted to find something
that I had no idea existed, in the chapel of St
Peter ad Vincula.

In the corner at the back, unmarked, unsignposted
and without any inscription
was a marble funeral effigy, clearly C15, a somewhat
severe and grim looking
fellow with two wives (I assumed), under a rather
elaborate and ornate canopy. I
was strangely drawn to this, and (to my delight) saw
an heraldic shield painted
with the arms of Salisbury/Montagu (three red
diamonds on white quartered with a
black bird), and another of an inverted red 'V' on
(what is now) a dark brown
background which I was not so familiar with, but
suspected might be Stafford.

He had (what looked like) a lion at his feet, as did
the middle wife, and the
other had what appeared to be two dogs at hers. The
man had died in a state of
grace, and was wearing a ducal coronet. The three
looked very sombre (as I
suppose you do when dead for centuries), and were
distinctly unattractive, but
he was something special, in fact I would go as far
as to say 'chilling'. Of
course, the blank, white marble eyes (open) didn't
help, but his wide, heavy,
jowly jaw, grim line of a mouth, and cruel, hooky
nose, led me to believe this
was not only an accurate representation of someone
in particular (this was
'quality stuff' by C15 standards), whoever it was
had been an ugly brute by the
standards of any age. He wasn't wearing armour
either, just a long, flowing
robe, so I assumed he was probably a cleric (there
was, I thought, a slight
resemblance to Cardinal Beaufort).

Whatever, I lagged behind as long as I could, but
inevitably was shooed out by
an amiable, but dutiful Beefeater. I asked him who
it was, and was astonished to
hear it was none other than John Holland, 2nd Duke
of Exeter, Constable of the
Tower and the inventive fellow who introduced (some
say invented) the first rack
ever seen in England, known fondly by Londoners as
'The Duke of Exeter's
Daughter'. I had no idea any image of him existed
until that moment.

I checked up later, and sure enough, he married at
least twice - Ann de Stafford
(check) and Anne de Montagu (check). Also some say
Brites, Bastard of Portugal
(unusual name - mysterious lady, a widow I believe),
but she must have either
dropped off the end or lies elsewhere - no trace of
her on the memorial that I
saw .

Unfortunately I didn't have long to examine it, and
you can only get into the
chapel under heavy supervision. I blew it completely
at this point by asking one
of the guards if I could nip in and get a photo of
the Duke, only to be informed
gravely "no photography allowed in the chapel!" in a
most positive and
uncompromising manner. Bad move being honest, for as
I waited to tag onto the
next tour, digital camera concealed carefully in
'surveillance' mode, his beady
eyes never left me for a moment, so I gave up before
being ejected at the point
of a halberd.

There appear to be no images or photos of this grim
trio or their monument on
the net anywhere, certainly no postcards (not
exactly 'cheerful')... does anyone
out there have anything I wonder?

My particular interest is not actually Duke John,
but his son Henry (almost as
unpleasant as his 'daughter'!), who commanded the
Lancastrian rearward at the
battle of Barnet (my personal 'special interest').

Until now, I had no clues at all as to what he might
have looked like, only
various accounts of his terrible temper, reckless
behaviour, penchant for
violence, great bitterness at having been exiled and
forced to beg barefoot, and
thirst for revenge ("cruell and fierce" said the
Milanese ambassador).

Although nothing is certain, if Henry resembled
either his father or mother, he
must have been just how I always idly imagined him -
an ugly brute, with a
thuggish, battered face, cruel mouth and blazing
eyes. He has no known portrait,
and no funeral monument, as he lies somewhere at the
bottom of the channel after
'falling overboard' during a crossing (with some
encouragement it seems) in the
late 1470's...

I am no expert in heraldry, so I'm not quite sure
which wife was which (was
there any convention on second wives being placed
next to, or on the outside on
such effigies?). I was also curious as to why John
wasn't wearing armour, as he
fought at Agincourt (some say) and elsewhere in
France, and was a knight of
course. He died in 1447, apparently poisoned, though
I have no details about
that either... anyone?

Cheers
Martin










_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger 6.0 - jogos, emoticons sonoros e muita diversão. Instale agora!
http://br.download.yahoo.com/messenger/

Martin Reboul

Re: John Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter, Constable Of The Tower

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 19:43:43

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uZz3d.265$3Y3.1191385@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5uk3d.164$qH4.3088@eagle.america.net...
Bingo!

Chris Phillips has it right.

As any proper fool should know, particularly a Brit, John Holand, who
died in 1447, was THIRD Duke of Exeter -- not the SECOND.

I think that, technically at least, that he was the 1st Duke of Exeter of
the third creation.

The first creation was his father, John Holland, in 1397. But after Richard
II was deposed, he was stripped of the dukedom and reverted to being Earl of
Huntingdon. Henry IV had him executed in 1400 and a few months later his
lands and titles were forfeited when he was attainted. End of the first
creation.

The second creation was in 1416, when Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, was
made Duke of Exeter for life only. He died in 1426. End of the second
creation.

About the time that Thomas Beaufort was created Duke of Exeter, John
Holland, son of the first duke, was allowed to take his father's earldom of
Huntingdon. In 1444 he was created Duke of Exeter by Henry VI. This was the
third creation, not a resumption upon revocation of the attainder.

To call him the second Duke of Exeter, based on his father's having been the
first, is not, strictly speaking, correct, but close enough for government
work it seems to me. To call him the third Duke of Exeter would clearly be
wrong, as counting starts with each creation.

Henry, the son of John (d. 1447), was the second duke of the third creation
or the third duke of the Holland line (take your choice). He was attainted
in 1461. I have never seen him referred to as the fourth duke. He was,
however, certainly the last Duke of Exeter.

Whatever. But the next time I'm in London, the Chapel of St. Peter ad
Vincula will be high on my list of places to see. The effigy of the
not-so-good duke sounds fascinating.

Certainly worth it John (despite the rather steep entry fee to the Tower!).

It somehow felt like 'meeting an old friend'.... perhaps not though, more like
bumping into someone like DSH by chance, without realising it was actually him
until he'd gone!

Thanks for that, as it confirms what I had always thought - in several places in
the Tower, I saw John Holland mentioned as being the Duke of Exeter who was at
the battle of Agincourt, which is incorrect, as it was Tom Beaufort. I doubt if
either of them looked like Brian Blessed....

Even so, he was a knight and must surely have seen some action in France? Do you
have any idea why his effigy isn't armoured, as was usual at that time? Apart
from clergymen (which he certainly wasn't), I can think of very few who are
represented in 'plain clothes' as it were, only a few early Earls of Warwick in
St. Mary's, Warwick, and a couple of well-to-do Aldermen etc.

His image is 'dressed' in a most unusual fashion, ducal coronet, and what looks
like a long nightshirt with a frilly collar -grave clothes perhaps? Certainly
not a cloak, or robe. Somehow it makes him look far more sinister than good old
traditional armour, as he looks as if he has just been laid out, dead. The white
marble makes it even more 'cadaverous'...
Cheers
Martin

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 20:36:47

""Frank Bullen"" <bullenfw41@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:001101c49f34$452dc600$f84aef9b@F1...
Hi Martin!

Glad you enjoyed your visit to the Tower. It really is an historical gem,
despite its > grisly past. Were you aware that Queen Victoria ordered that

the remains of those > royal personages who had been executed within the Tower
should cbe disinterred?

We were told that all the 'traitors' executed outside had been buried within the
chapel in unmarked graves, and their bones had indeed been dug up in a Victorian
're-fit'. Apparently they were all placed in a box which was walled up on the
west side, next to the organ pipes. I wonder how Sir Thomas More feels rubbing
femurs with Lady Jayne Grey and Monmouth for eternity? It could be worse I
suppose...

The Altar in St. Peter ad Vincula stand upon a slightly raised section of
flooring,
under which the royal victims were re-buried, and their names appear in the
stone
surface of the raised section.

I may have missed that bit? There is a full list of them on the wall by the
entrance... not a bunch who would be too pleased to find themselves boxed up
together I thought, but I doubt it worries them now.

I might just be wrong about that though, as that chapel is supposed to be just
about the most 'haunted' place in the whole world! Many guards and staff have
seen peculiar lights, and heard inexplicable noises during the night....
including funeral processions and even a wedding. I was surprised the Beefeaters
never mentioned this, they were far more gruesome, graphic and explicit a few
decades ago IIRC! Gloomy, but nothing spooky I noticed (though having a few
score of tourists with you might have spoiled the 'atmosphere...)

There is, however, a delightful story, mentioned in Norah Lofts' book on Anne
Boleyn. >Legend has it that Anne's childhood friend, Sir Thomas Wyatt and his

sister (who had >attended Anne at her execution) secretly had Anne's remains
removed after her initial >burial. (She had been buried in an old arrow-box,
as no-one had thought to arrange for a >coffin at her execution). The box
with her remains was spirited (how appropriate) out of the >Tower and carried to
the church of Sts. Peter & Paul at Salle, in Norfolk. (Her grandfather, >Sir
Geoffrey Boleyn, had been one of the church's benefactors) According to the
story, she >was re-buried there under an unmarked black stone slab. With the
Tower sentinels now >relaxing in the immediate aftermath of her execution, this
might well have been possible. >Sir Thomas Wyatt later made a cryptic remark
to the effect that Anne's remains now rested >in a far holier >place.

I hope it is true, she didn't have much luck in life... even at her execution.
Strange, as posthumous travel is associated with the unfortunate lady - her
ghost is supposed to appear in several places (Hever Castle and Blicking Hall as
well as the Tower), I always wondered why that might be. Surely the busiest
ghost in England?
Cheers
Martin

Martin Reboul

Re: Ann Boleyn's re-burial

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 20:39:24

"Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.61.0409201334130.6875@mail...
Frank, how interesting. Can you say if the slab is thought to exist
now in Ss. Peter & Paul at Salle, Norfolk, and if it's now marked?

Hmmm... if you were thinking of 'having a look', she should be easy to
identify - 12 fingers!
Sorry Dolly, please excuse my morbidity, it comes from archaeology....
Cheers
Martin

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 20:43:48

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:fd0918f14c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 19 Sep, "Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote:


"Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:R7i3d.609075$Gx4.164056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> says in
news:ICh3d.2202$Sb1.1705@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

Visited the Tower

Which tower

for the first time in a third of a
century

Which century.

the other day

Which day? lol.

, and after some mild cursing about
not being able to examine tha crime scene (the Bloody Tower
being bloody shut!)

Bloody Tower?

You have enough evidence there Philip - have a guess! :¬)

Warning: this has been cross-posted to the medieval history group.

Whenever anyone does this in the past, it leads to extraneous matter on
s.g.m that has no relevance and tends to distress the more serious of
contributors here. Accordingly I have removed the cross-posting and set
follow-ups to s.g.m only. But if anyone replies to the original, this
is a waste of my time!

Sorry Tim, I thought it might be of interest to both groups... SHM can be a
trifle 'rough' suppose. As long as things aren't somehow diverted to politics,
fox-hunting or (worst of all) the Kensington Runestone, all should be well....
Cheers
Martin

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 20:46:54

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:20040920115849.79093.qmail@web41712.mail.yahoo.com...
Brites, bastard of Portugal is the other Beatriz, this
one being daughter of King John I of Portugal.

Thanks for that Francisco. The poor woman didn't seem to last very long with JH,
I hope she wasn't too unhappy...
Cheers
Martin

William Black

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av William Black » 20 sep 2004 20:55:48

"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:3rF3d.711$TC3.596@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

I might just be wrong about that though, as that chapel is supposed to be
just
about the most 'haunted' place in the whole world! Many guards and staff
have
seen peculiar lights, and heard inexplicable noises during the night....
including funeral processions and even a wedding. I was surprised the
Beefeaters
never mentioned this, they were far more gruesome, graphic and explicit a
few
decades ago IIRC! Gloomy, but nothing spooky I noticed (though having a
few
score of tourists with you might have spoiled the 'atmosphere...)

I know a couple of people who used to work there when the Royal Armouries
lived there.

When you actually chase down the ghost stories there's very little there.

Usually a story by a child that he or she told for years or someone coming
home (there are several homes within the precincts of the Tower) having had
a bit too good a time and either falling or breaking something fragile and
needing something to blame.

Remember most of the uniformed staff who 'live in' are retired twenty five
year service senior NCOs, mainly Warrant Officers, who are all getting on
a bit but still around serving soldiers. People not noted for admitting
falling over under any circumstances...

Anyway, the word went around fifteen or so years ago that the ghost stories
were mainly rubbish and there's no shame in a man well over fifty falling
over on the stairs when slightly taken in drink...

End of ghost stories...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

Frank Bullen

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 20 sep 2004 21:10:49

Hi Martin!

Glad you enjoyed your visit to the Tower. It really is an historical gem, despite its grisly past. Were you aware that Queen Victoria ordered that the remains of those royal personages who had been executed within the Tower should cbe disinterred?

The Altar in St. Peter ad Vincula stand upon a slightly raised section of flooring, under which the royal victims were re-buried, and their names appear in the stone surface of the raised section.

There is, however, a delightful story, mentioned in Norah Lofts' book on Anne Boleyn. Legend has it that Anne's childhood friend, Sir Thomas Wyatt and his sister (who had attended Anne at her execution) secretly had Anne's remains removed after her initial burial. (She had been buried in an old arrow-box, as no-one had thought to arrange for a coffin at her execution). The box with her remains was spirited (how appropriate) out of the Tower and carried to the church of Sts. Peter & Paul at Salle, in Norfolk. (Her grandfather, Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, had been one of the church's benefactors) According to the story, she was re-buried there under an unmarked black stone slab. With the Tower sentinels now relaxing in the immediate aftermath of her execution, this might well have been possible. Sir Thomas Wyatt later made a cryptic remark to the effect that Anne's remains now rested in a far holier place.

Regards

Frank

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 20 sep 2004 21:15:26

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cin91o$vrg$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:3rF3d.711$TC3.596@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

I might just be wrong about that though, as that chapel is supposed to be
just
about the most 'haunted' place in the whole world! Many guards and staff
have
seen peculiar lights, and heard inexplicable noises during the night....
including funeral processions and even a wedding. I was surprised the
Beefeaters
never mentioned this, they were far more gruesome, graphic and explicit a
few
decades ago IIRC! Gloomy, but nothing spooky I noticed (though having a
few
score of tourists with you might have spoiled the 'atmosphere...)

I know a couple of people who used to work there when the Royal Armouries
lived there.

When you actually chase down the ghost stories there's very little there.

Usually a story by a child that he or she told for years or someone coming
home (there are several homes within the precincts of the Tower) having had
a bit too good a time and either falling or breaking something fragile and
needing something to blame.

Remember most of the uniformed staff who 'live in' are retired twenty five
year service senior NCOs, mainly Warrant Officers, who are all getting on
a bit but still around serving soldiers. People not noted for admitting
falling over under any circumstances...

Anyway, the word went around fifteen or so years ago that the ghost stories
were mainly rubbish and there's no shame in a man well over fifty falling
over on the stairs when slightly taken in drink...

End of ghost stories...

Well, I can believe that. Most sightings go back well over a century, though a
few involving court martials do sound at least interesting. I'm always intrigued
by ghost stories like that of the poor old Countess of Salisbury, being hacked
to death on Tower Green so horribly.... very good of the headsman to turn up too
I thought?

Also, all these 'anniversary hauntings' - they don't seem to have been affected
by the change from Julian to Gregorian calenders, GMT, BST etc.... apart from
one thing - none ever appears reliably every year! If they did, I'm sure you'd
love to watch the battle of Edgehill, just as I would.

I have never known a few pints (even more than a few!) produce visual or audible
hallucinations however, and I'm always irritated that having had a few drinks is
always used to excuse anything odd that someone has witnessed, or claims to have
seen. I know what I've seen and heard...
Cheers
Martin

Dolly Ziegler

Ann Boleyn's re-burial

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 20 sep 2004 21:39:29

Frank, how interesting. Can you say if the slab is thought to exist
now in Ss. Peter & Paul at Salle, Norfolk, and if it's now marked?
Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Frank Bullen wrote:

Hi Martin!

Glad you enjoyed your visit to the Tower. It really is an historical
gem, despite its grisly past. Were you aware that Queen Victoria
ordered that the remains of those royal personages who had been executed
within the Tower should cbe disinterred?

The Altar in St. Peter ad Vincula stand upon a slightly raised section
of flooring, under which the royal victims were re-buried, and their
names appear in the stone surface of the raised section.

There is, however, a delightful story, mentioned in Norah Lofts' book on
Anne Boleyn. Legend has it that Anne's childhood friend, Sir Thomas
Wyatt and his sister (who had attended Anne at her execution) secretly
had Anne's remains removed after her initial burial. (She had been
buried in an old arrow-box, as no-one had thought to arrange for a
coffin at her execution). The box with her remains was spirited (how
appropriate) out of the Tower and carried to the church of Sts. Peter &
Paul at Salle, in Norfolk. (Her grandfather, Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, had
been one of the church's benefactors) According to the story, she was
re-buried there under an unmarked black stone slab. With the Tower
sentinels now relaxing in the immediate aftermath of her execution, this
might well have been possible. Sir Thomas Wyatt later made a cryptic
remark to the effect that Anne's remains now rested in a far holier
place.

Chris Dickinson

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 21 sep 2004 00:04:14

Martin Reboul wrote:

I wonder how Sir Thomas More feels rubbing
femurs with Lady Jayne Grey and Monmouth for eternity?

Whatever their femurs may be doing, at least More's head is elsewhere - in a
church in Canterbury, if I remember right.

Chris

Frank Bullen

Re: Ann Boleyn's re-burial

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 21 sep 2004 00:09:15

Hi Dolly!

When I was in Salle last, two years ago, there were five unmarked black stone slabs in the floor. There were one or two other black stone slabs with engraved inscriptions, none of which were relevant. As to whether any of the five plain slabs hide the remains of Anne Boleyn is anyone's guess. The only way to prove this would be by exhumation of the remains, one by one, to see if one had suffered beheading (not a common occurrence in rural England) as it is beyond question that Anne Boleyn was beheaded. However, even if such remains were to be found beneath one of the slabs, that does not prove that they were the remains of Henry VIII's second Queen and., at this juncture, I fail to see how such identity could be established.

We can ignore any question of identifying her body by her alleged deformities. The only contemporary descriptions of Anne other than by her enemies make no suggestion of a sixth finger, nor of a "wen" on her neck - these were propagandist lies created to discredit her by forming the basis for attacking her as a witch. Cavendish, who knew her well, praised not only her many talents and her personality, but also her appearance, describing her as "Gorgeous".

On the other hand, one of Anne's most inveterate critics was the Spanish Ambassador, Chapuys. Remember, Henry's first Queen was Catherine of Aragon, the Catholic Spanish princess, whom Henry divorced so that he could marry Anne. Catherine was the niece of the Holy Roman Emperor. Chapuys - who only ever met Anne once and then fleetingly - could not understand English. He relied upon the reports of his paid spies and minions for the reports he sent back to Spain, in which he describes Anne with such opprobrium that, even today, in Spain, many people regard her almost on a par with Satan himself.

There have been many books written about Anne Boleyn, a surprising number of which perpetuate the adverse propaganda about Anne and her family. My argument with several of them is the surprisingly careless research on the part of the authors. If you are interested, the best book ever written about her was published earlier this year by Piatkus, in London. It was written by Joanna Denny, descendant of one of Henry VIII's most trusted officials, who had charge of the king's "Dry Seal" - Sir Anthony Denny.

Regards

Frank

Gjest

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2004 03:07:13

In a message dated 20/09/04 19:46:27 GMT Daylight Time,
martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net writes:

We were told that all the 'traitors' executed outside had been buried
within the
chapel in unmarked graves, and their bones had indeed been dug up in a
Victorian
're-fit'. Apparently they were all placed in a box which was walled up on
the
west side, next to the organ pipes. I wonder how Sir Thomas More feels
rubbing
femurs with Lady Jayne Grey and Monmouth for eternity? It could be worse I
suppose...



Sir Thomas More's head was spirited away (well taken by his daughter) and
ended up in St Dunstan's, Canterbury. Does a body without a head have any
feelings, or perhaps the head in Canterbury is in touch his bodies surroundings in
the Tower?

In fact I expect he is in his own Utopia.

Adrian

Chris Phillips

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 sep 2004 11:03:21

I wrote:
According to Complete Peerage vol. 5, pp. 209-211, John, his first wife
Anne
de Stafford and his third wife Anne de Mountagu, were buried in the church
of St Katherine by the Tower. His second wife Beatrice was buried with her
first husband Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, (d. 1415) at Arundel.

CP volume 14 adds a reference to Gough, "Sepulchral Monuments", vol. 2, part
3, 1796, plate 54 and pp. 155-6.

Chris Phillips

a.spencer3

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 sep 2004 12:42:59

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cin91o$vrg$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
Remember most of the uniformed staff who 'live in' are retired twenty
five
year service senior NCOs, mainly Warrant Officers, who are all getting
on
a bit but still around serving soldiers. People not noted for admitting
falling over under any circumstances...


Years ago I had the undoubted privilege of being 'allowed' to buy some

Beefeaters a few pints in their own bar, after watching 'The Keys'. They
didn't have to admit to anything, they were just doing it all over the
place!
Good crowd but, inevitably I suppose, a bit too far along the extrovert long
storytellers route for me!

Surreyman

Martin Reboul

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 21 sep 2004 14:37:01

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TAT3d.117$CS6.45@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cin91o$vrg$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

Remember most of the uniformed staff who 'live in' are retired twenty
five
year service senior NCOs, mainly Warrant Officers, who are all getting
on
a bit but still around serving soldiers. People not noted for admitting
falling over under any circumstances...


Years ago I had the undoubted privilege of being 'allowed' to buy some
Beefeaters a few pints in their own bar, after watching 'The Keys'. They
didn't have to admit to anything, they were just doing it all over the
place!
Good crowd but, inevitably I suppose, a bit too far along the extrovert long
storytellers route for me!

Well, it is their job I suppose?

Not one I'd fancy, I have to say - all that shouting, making the same jokes
several times a day, then answering the same tiresome questions day in day out,
whilst remaining polite, patient, charming and cheerful.... I think they deserve
a few pts.!

Frank Bullen

Re: Ann Boleyn's re-burial

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 22 sep 2004 00:25:51

Hi Martin!

Have you been putting odd fingers in other peoples graves? Shame on you! The propaganda about Anne's alleged deformities is just that - propaganda.

"Before you look at the history, look at the historian".

Regards

Frank

Martin Reboul

Re: Ann Boleyn's re-burial

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 22 sep 2004 03:33:26

""Frank Bullen"" <bullenfw41@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:017101c4a018$42780e40$234aef9b@F1...
Hi Martin!

Have you been putting odd fingers in other peoples graves? Shame on you!
The propaganda about Anne's alleged deformities is just that - propaganda.


I daresay you are right Frank, it was a somewhat tasteless, but light-hearted
comment. Were it true, it would no doubt have attracted much attention (and
suspicion) at Court, and cooled the King's ardour somewhat!

Interesting that this phenomena was know then even so, although it is extremely
rare. I knew a girl with webbed feet once....
Cheers
Martin

Frank Bullen

Re: A delightful discovery!

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 25 sep 2004 20:03:11

If you are interested - try to find a copy of "A Tudor Story - The Return of Anne Boleyn" by the late Canon W S Pakenham Walsh, published (1963) by the Churches Fellowship for Psychical & Spiritual Studies, of London.

Fascinating.

Regards

Frank

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»