1499: Edward, Earl of Warwick, the last Plantagenet claimant

Executed Today ^ | November 28th, 2019

[robowombat]

1499: Edward, Earl of Warwick, the last Plantagenet claimant

November 28th, 2019

On this date in 1499, the Plantagenet prince Edward, Earl of Warwick lost his head — and his once-mighty house lost its last direct male successor to its claim upon kingship.

A lagging casualty of the Wars of the Roses, little Ted was only three when he lost his old man to a treason charge and a butt of malmsey. The same blade dangled close to Edward’s neck throughout his few years, for he became a potential royal claimant after his young cousins, the Princes in the Tower, were killed off in 1483.

Warwick was all of eight years old at that moment. When he was 10, he was shut up in the Tower of London by Henry VII, never really to leave it again.* “Being kept in the Tower from his tender age, that is to say from his first year of the king [i.e., of Henry VII’s reign] to this fifteenth year, out of all company of men and sight of beasts, in so much that he could not discern a goose from a capon,” in the words of chronicler Edward Hall. Some historians have taken that to mean that Edward was was mentally disabled, but under the circumstances, who wouldn’t be?*

It was cold and eminently practical mistreatment, for this boy however innocent in his own person was the potential champion of the Yorkists. In 1487, an abortive rebellion arose in Warwick’s name, with a 10-year-old kid named Lambert Simnel presented as a faux-Edward. Henry crushed the rebellion and was obliged to make his proofs to the populace by parading the real Edward around London which was at least a rare excursion outside the Tower walls for the tween hostage.**

Pretenders tossed the boy prisoner hither and yon on the currents of fortune. The next one to have a go at Henry, a Low Countries twerp named Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be one of the lost Princes in the Tower, mounted landings in the mid-1490s, vainly hoping to spark a general revolt. After he was finally captured in 1497, he wound up in the Tower with poor Warwick. Warbeck persuaded the desperate youth upon a desperate course — or was it by the intentional policy of that scheming king to dispose of a threat and thereby cinch that famously ill-fated Spanish marriage so productive of clientele for our grim annals? A century-plus later, Francis Bacon described in History of the Reign of King Henry VII the popular suspicion that had attached to this convenient tying up of loose ends:

it was ordained, that this winding-ivy of a Plantagenet should kill the true tree itself. For Perkin, after he had been a while in the Tower, began to insinuate himself into the favour and kindness of his keepers, servants to the lieutenant of the Tower Sir John Digby, being four in number; Strangeways, Blewet, Astwood, and Long Roger. These varlets, with mountains of promises, he sought to corrupt, to obtain his escape; but knowing well, that his own fortunes were made so contemptible, as he could feed no man’s hopes, and by hopes he must work, for rewards he had none, he had contrived with himself a vast and tragical plot; which was, to draw into his company Edward Plantagenet earl of Warwick, then prisoner in the Tower; whom the weary life of a long imprisonment, and the often and renewing fears of being put to death, had softened to take any impression of counsel for his liberty. This young Prince he thought these servants would look upon, though not upon himself: and therefore, after that by some message by one or two of them, he had tasted of the earl’s consent; it was agreed that these four should murder their master the lieutenant secretly in the night, and make their best of such money and portable goods of his, as they should find ready at hand, and get the keys of the Tower, and presently let forth Perkin and the earl. But this conspiracy was revealed in time, before it could be executed. And in this again the opinion of the King’s great wisdom did surcharge him with a sinister fame, that Perkin was but his bait, to entrap the earl of Warwick.

… Howsoever it were, hereupon Perkin, that had offended against grace now the third time, was at the last proceeded with, and by commissioners of oyer and terminer arraigned at Westminster, upon divers treasons committed and perpetrated after his coming on land within this kingdom, for so the judges advised, for that he was a foreigner, and condemned, and a few days after executed at Tyburn; where he did again openly read his confession, and take it upon his death to be true. This was the end of this little cockatrice of a King, that was able to destroy those that did not espy him first. It was one of the longest plays of that kind that hath been in memory, and might perhaps have had another end, if he had not met with a King both wise, stout, and fortunate. … And immediately after was arraigned before the Earl of Oxford, then for the time high steward of England, the poor Prince, the Earl of Warwick; not for the attempt to escape simply, for that was not acted; and besides, the imprisonment not being for treason, the escape by law could not be treason, but for conspiring with Perkin to raise sedition, and to destroy the King: and the earl confessing the indictment, had judgment, and was shortly after beheaded on Tower-hill.

This was also the end, not only of this noble and commiserable person Edward the earl of Warwick, eldest son to the duke of Clarence: but likewise of the line male of the Plantagenets, which had flourished in great royalty and renown, from the time of the famous King of England, King Henry the second. Howbeit it was a race often dipped in their own blood. It hath remained since only transplanted into other names, as well of the imperial line, as of other noble houses.

But it was neither guilt of crime, nor treason of state, that could quench the envy that was upon the King for this execution: so that he thought good to export it out of the land, and to lay it upon his new ally, Ferdinando King of Spain. For these two Kings understanding one another at half a word, so it was that there were letters shewed out of Spain, whereby in the passages concerning the treaty of marriage, Ferdinando had written to the King in plain terms, that he saw no assurance of his succession, as long as the earl of Warwick lived; and that he was loth to send his daughter to troubles and dangers. But hereby, as the King did in some part remove the envy from himself; so he did not observe, that he did withal bring a kind of malediction and infausting upon the marriage, as an ill prognostic: which in event so far proved true, as both Prince Arthur enjoyed a very small time after the marriage, and the lady Catharine herself, a sad and a religious woman, long after, when King Henry the eighth his resolution of a divorce from her was first made known to her, used some words, that she had not offended, but it was a judgment of God, for that her former marriage was made in blood; meaning that of the earl of Warwick.

* The situation reminds of little Tsar Ivan VI in the 18th century, although that Russian prince was held from an even younger age, under even more oppressive conditions.

** Being only a figurehead, the pretend Warwick ironically enjoyed great mercy compared to the real one. Simnel was installed in Henry’s kitchens instead and lived out a comfortable life in the royal household.

[Agamemnon]

King Henry II was a grandson of Henry I through his mother Matilda. Henry II’s father was a Plantagenet so Henry II was the first Plantagenet king. I don’t know if the Plantagenets also had Scandinavian ancestry. They were rulers of Anjou in France.

You are correct, but the poster to whom I was responding identified Normans specifically and appeared to conflate them lineage with the rest of the other tribes which formed France.

For a time Britain considered portions of continental France including Anjou and Brittany (a semi-autonomous region on the larger land mass) to be under English rule in part due to the fact that Vikings were thrown out of Brittany by the Anglo-Saxons. Calais was in fact Britain's last foothold on continental France.

FReegards!

[SunkenCiv]

Thx, bfl. The bloody usurper Henry VII, killing off rivals? Not a four leaf clover. :^)

[Jimmy Valentine]

There is in fact a Plantagenet living today. He is descended from the distaff line of that family. He lives in Australia. You tube did an interesting article about him.

[ops33]

Different King Richard. Richard III was found buried under a parking lot in England. Richard I, Richard the Lion Heart, lived about 300 years earlier and is buried in Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou, France.

[Verginius Rufus]

Which company did you use? I have had wildly different results from different companies, some of them very different from what I would expect based on genealogical research. AncestryDNA, 23andMe and FamilyTreeDNA have all revised the percentages they originally sent me, sometimes rather substantially.

In other words, the ethnic breakdowns need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Verginius Rufus]

William of Normandy and his descendants continued to be Dukes of Normandy (until King John lost it to Philip II). Henry II, by marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine, was lord of more of France than Louis VII was.

[BubbaBasher]

Hey cousin! I’m also from the Plantagenet line with links to Lorenzo de Medici and the Orsinis.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Richard the Lionhart was more French than English. His mother was Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard spent his entire reign out of the country on crusades. He barely spoke English.

[mass55th]

I bought the kit from Ancestry.com. My initial DNA findings were in June. In August, I got a notice that my DNA findings had been updated. This is the notice they provide on my DNA page:

"Don’t worry, your DNA doesn’t change. What changes is what we know about DNA, the amount of data we have, and the ways we can analyze it. When that leads to new discoveries, we update your results."

In June my initial DNA findings were 70% England, Wales and Northwestern Europe. 25% Germanic Europe, 3% Norway, 2% Sweden.

In August, they revised it to: 59% England, Wales and Northwestern Europe. 35% Germanic Europe, 2% Sweden, 2% Ireland and Scotland, and 2% Norway.

I'm not concerned about the update in the DNA breakdown since I always only thought I was Dutch (my father was born in Holland), and English because my mother was born in Canada, and early research I did showed part of her family came from there. The other parts, Germany, Norway, and Sweden were a surprise. I am wondering though about the Italian ancestors I have found in my family tree. My 9th great-grandfather Peter Caesar Alberti was from Italy. I've rechecked the earlier connections, and the records all match. He was born in Venice in 1608, and is hailed as the first Italian immigrant to New York. His mother was supposed to be Veronica de Medici. His father Andrea Piero Alberti. Peter and his wife Judeth Jan Menjie were killed by Indians on his plantation in Brooklyn near New Amsterdam on November 9, 1655. As far as I know there is no proof that his father was Andrea Piero Alberti, or that his mother was a de Medici. Those are the "potential" parents cited in hints from Ancestry.com and other people's family trees. The problem is that there hasn't been any DNA connected with Italy. Most of my DNA connected lines peter out in the mid-to-late 1700's, and since he was born in 1608, the DNA connection on that family line ends at my 5th great-grandmother who was supposed to be his direct descendant. I know that Native American blood lines, even if they are supposed to be there, according to Ancestry.com may not show up because either it was so little that it didn't register, or that my ancestor never inherited the Native-American DNA from their predecessors.

Once the DNA connections end in the family tree, anything beyond that is speculation at most. So like you, I take all these connections further up the tree with a grain of salt. They can't be proved.

[mass55th]

Hi...alleged cousin!! I say alleged, because my connections to the Plantagenet’s and de Medici’s aren’t written in stone. While it’s been interesting to find my potential ancestors, I can’t rely on what other people’s family trees say, or who Ancestry.com recommends as a “potential” ancestor. Since all my actual DNA connections peter out in the 5th and 6th generations, it’s anybody’s guess whether what comes after is fact or fiction. I know they’ve connected 14th cousins, twice removed, with Richard III’s sister Anne of York. It would be interesting to find out if my DNA connects to his other sister Elizabeth Plantagenet, Duchess of Suffolk who is supposed to be my 15th great-grandmother.

[Verginius Rufus]

Ten generations back you have 1024 ancestors (barring duplications where the same person could be your ancestor on more than one line)--you don't have DNA from all of them. Even less than 10 generations back you have ancestors from whom you have inherited no DNA. The amount you inherit from a given ancestor (once back past your parents) can vary greatly.

On FamilyTreeDNA I found a couple of third cousins (same set of great-great-grandparents). One of them was one of my closest matches; the other was way down the list sharing a much smaller number of centiMorgans with me than the other man does.

I did the Ancestry test in 2016 and have had two revisions since then--in October 2018 and a few weeks ago. The most recent one seems the most accurate (which is not to say I am 100% convinced by it).

Sometimes the matches are useful--I have had some interesting exchanges with distant cousins I would not have known about otherwise. I was able to help a fourth cousin in Australia, adopted at birth, to find her biological mother and they had a happy reunion. Of course many of the matches are too distant to be able to find a paper trail documenting the exact relationship, and sometimes I wonder how I could possibly have a relative in that country.

[mass55th]

Thanks for your reply. How wonderful that you were able to connect your Australian cousin with her real mother. That must have been such an awesome accomplishment. Although my DNA Matches are well over a thousand, I only share a common ancestor with a handful of them, and they’re only on my mother’s side of the family. None on my father’s side at all. I am DNA matched with two 1st and 2nd cousins, and two 2nd and 3rd cousins. The rest are all 3rd and 4th cousins...and so on.

[Agamemnon]

William of Normandy and his descendants continued to be Dukes of Normandy (until King John lost it to Philip II). Henry II, by marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine, was lord of more of France than Louis VII was.

That's nice but let's begin by noting that Dukes are not Kings. As you correctly note note King Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine; upon doing so her name and title did not become Eleanor of Normandy, nor did Aquitaine thereafter become a part of Normandy. Aquitaine is Frankish (from which the term "French" is derived) and Basque if anything. Not Norman. Not Scandinavian.

The original poster wrote: "Recall that the Normans from french Normandy invaded England and defeated the Anglo saxons.

I think we can agree that there was no such thing as a "french Normandy" at the time of William the Conqueror and that Henry II did not show up as a regent of the Normandy region until over 50 years after William the Conqueror's death. While Anglo-Norman regency rivalries certainly transpired during that time between the death of William I and ascendancy of Henry II, Aquitaine never became a part of Normandy, particularly where being "french" has anything to do with it.

FReegards!

[Verginius Rufus]

I'm surprised that you don't have more matches if some of your ancestors were in America already in the 1600s. I think I have over 20,000 matches on Ancestry, over 4,000 with MyHeritage, over 2000 with FamilyTreeDNA and over 1000 with 23andMe. Sometimes the same person shows up on multiple lists. Most of mine are on my mother's side since she had ancestors here before the American Revolution--my father's side are more recent immigrants.

The cousin in Australia had fine adoptive parents but they are now dead. She was conceived because her mother was raped--that was in the 1950s when giving the baby up for adoption was the thing to do. There were other people involved in helping her find her mother but I had some genealogical information which was valuable. Her mother was contacted first by a third party to see if she wanted to meet her daughter (she had married and had 3 children)--the mother was worried that the daughter might hold it against her that she gave her up but that wasn't an issue. The daughter sent me photos of their reunion (they live 80 miles apart)--ever since she learned that she was adopted she had wondered about her real mother. I was very happy to help make the reunion possible.

[Verginius Rufus]

The name Aquitaine goes back before the Franks or Normans.

Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War starts out:

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolant Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.

[mass55th]

Ancestry.com only says I have 1000+ matches. I haven’t actually counted them, so I have no idea what the complete total is. My mother was born in 1920, and never knew her father. Her parents were separated/divorced before my grandmother came from Canada to the US when my mother was a little girl. My mother had an older brother who was married, but never had children. I started my initial family search for her side of the family in 1991 after she had passed, by going to Picton, Ontario where she was supposed to have been born. She knew nothing of her family, and was never even able to get a certified birth certificate for herself. I’ve never been able to find out what happened to my grandfather (her father), nor her aunt (my great-aunt) who married a silversmith in Canada and moved to Covington, Ky. in the late 20’s or early 30’s. He died young, and the last info I ever found on her was that in the 50’s, she was still living in Covington, and working at Western Union. They have no record for her. I have no idea if she ever became a citizen either. Her husband is buried in a double plot, but her side is empty, and she’d definitely be dead by now. It’s strange that I can make all these connections in older family lines, but I can’t even solve what should be the easiest ones.

[Verginius Rufus]

Ancestry says I have 904 matches who are 4th cousin or closer (20 centiMorgans shared). I don't see a figure for total matches--they only let you see matches who share at least 7 cMs. I have distant relatives who have taken the Ancestry test but don't show up as matches--either we share under 7 cMs or perhaps zero (if one or both of us have no DNA from the ancestor we share). Are your 1000+ matches "4th cousin or closer"?

I don't have any ideas on where else to search records.

Possibly it would help to take another DNA test because many of the matches would be people who did not take the Ancestry test. MyHeritage had a sale last week for $39. That's over but you might watch for their next sale.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks fieldmarshaldj. "Dames are Not Aggressive... in the Latin declension my point is still moot."

[mass55th]

No, I don't have many close matches. I have two first cousins that match. One has shared DNA connections of 982 cM across 41 segments. The next first cousin has shared DNA connections of 347 cM across 18 segments.

I have two second/third cousins. One has shared DNA connections of 263 cM across 14 segments. The other has shared DNA connections of 235 cM across 9 segments.

After that is drops down to a third/fourth cousin who has shared DNA connections of 179 cM across 11 segments.

The rest are third/fourth with diminishing connection and segments. I tried loading the list but only got down to sixth/eighth cousins. They seemed to be going on forever. My laptop is old, so it takes the page forever to load them all. I just stopped it at 17 cM across 1/2 segments. I don't know how far down the connection line Ancestry.com goes when listing your matches...but that's far enough for me.

Because my parents were born in other countries, I had no option but to go for the full subscription from Ancestry.com so I'd have access to the records in the various countries that the family line takes in. I wrote for an estimate to hire one of their genealogists to search in lines that ended early on, but they told me their prices start and $5,000 and go up from there. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Verginius Rufus]

Ancestry used to have 50 matches per page--now it is a continuous list. It was better before because you could search for a while and later resume the search at the place where you left off. Now I find that after a bit it will tell me that the site is too busy and I should come back later.

Have you tried Geni? If you Google Geni surnames and type in a surname you may find entries for ancestors or other relatives.

I have never signed up for Ancestry.com because many of the records are available for free with FamilySearch.org. That includes many records from other countries. That is a Mormon site but anyone can use it. You have to register to use it but registration is free. The local public library has Ancestry.com so I have used it a few times there.