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

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.

The name Aquitaine goes back before the Franks or Normans.

Actually, proto-Basque languages pre-date the Roman Latin which you quote, and I alluded to this root earlier when I posted, "Aquitaine is Frankish (from which the term "French" is derived) and Basque if anything...

More correctly, the territorial name "Aquitania" was used in Julius Caesar's ancient Rome. Julius Caesar wrote and spoke Latin. "Aquitaine" is not a word used in Latin. Aquitani is the Latin plural form used by Julius Caesar to identify the people of "Aquitania."

That said, the writings of Julius Caesar and the reign of Henry II are substantially outside the scope of the original topic.

FReegards!

Yep...I get the message that the page is too busy too, despite continually emptying my cache. When it happens, the fans on my laptop turn on. When I have questions on family connections due to varying dates and names (which is very often), I do a search on Bing for the name and dates, and go through whatever sources show up. I’ve used Geni many times.

“Dames are Not Aggressive..........

Said the man who never met Queen Elizabeth I..................

coming soon to a GGG topic near you (I’ve just not gotten ‘round to it):

Elizabeth I identified as author of Tacitus translation
November 29, 2019
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-elizabeth-author-tacitus.html

So which of the emperors in Tacitus' Annals did she want to emulate? Tiberius, Claudius, or Nero? (Or Augustus--he figures briefly in Book 1.) Unfortunately the portion covering Caligula's reign is lost.

Anyone who has learned Latin well enough can translate the surviving books of the Annals. I'd be more impressed if she had done a translation of the lost books of the Annals.

I am reading a book about Catherine of Aragon, first wife of Henry VIII. It does tell about the death of Warwick so that her father Ferdinand (and Isabella), would consent to the marriage since the inheritance would not be contested. Catherine found out that her marriage was started with a murder and years later bestowed kindnesses on that family in recompense. In the Ferdinand and Isabella marriage, she was actually the stronger and smarter ruler, even leading troups into battle against the Moores.

In a separate line, the book also described riots in London because foreigners with skills had successful businesses and were putting native English out of work. Riots occurred and people were executed. A little like the Brexit fuss, where one of the issues is Polish plumbers coming to England and doing better work than the native English.

I'm not sure who the author of the book that you're reading is, but I watched the first season of a TV series titled "The Red Princess." It's based on a book series by Philippa Gregory. I don't particularly care for her writing, but I enjoyed the series. It's been renewed for a second season. And Isabel was portrayed as a strong woman...who commanded her Army in actual battle. Don't know how factual it is, as I've never studied her, but several years ago, there was a Spanish series titled "Isabel." It ran for three seasons. I never watched it. Here's the link to the IMDb page for it:

Isabel 2011-2014

I like Alison Weir and David Starkey as writers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.