PaulRyckier
Censura
Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium
 |  Subject: Perkin Warbeck Fri 28 Oct 2016, 22:26 | |
| |
|
Gilgamesh of Uruk
Censura
Posts : 1560
Join date : 2011-12-27
| | Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck Sun 30 Oct 2016, 21:59 | |
| Ah, you have, I perceive. failed to consult the vade mecum on this matter, the indispensible oeuvre "1066 and All That". Hearken to the wisdom found therein, and desist from providing an excuse for more flummery, mummery, and post-mortem nunnery on such topics! - Quote :
- English history has always been subject to Waves of Pretenders. These have usually come in small waves of about two: an Old Pretender and a Young Pretender, their object being to sow dissension in the realm, and if possible to confuse the Royal issue by pretending to be heirs to the throne.
Two pretenders who now arose were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, and they succeeded in confusing the issue absolutely by being so similar that some historians suggest they were really the same person [i.e. the Earl of Warbeck].
Lambert Simnel (the Young Pretender) was really (probably) himself, but cleverly pretended to be the Earl of Warbeck. Henry VII therefore ordered him to be led through the streets of London to prove that he really was.
Perkin Warbeck (the Older and more confusing Pretender) insisted that he was himself, thus causing complete dissension till Henry VII had him led through the streets of London to prove that he was really Lambert Simnel.
The punishment of these memorable Pretenders was justly similar, since Perkin Warmnel was compelled to become a blot on the King’s kitchen, while Perbeck was made an escullion.
Wimneck however, subsequently began pretending again. This time he pretended that he had been smothered in early youth and buried under a stair-rod while pretending to be one of the Little Princes in the Tower. In order to prove that he had not been murdered before, Henry was reluctantly compelled to have him executed.
Even after his execution many people believed that he was only pretending to have been beheaded, while others declared that it was not Warmneck at all but Lamkin, and that Permnel had been dead all the time really, like Queen Anne. |
|
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25
| | Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck Mon 31 Oct 2016, 07:06 | |
| At one point early in their short lived bid to scam themselves into a few bob Warbeck's handlers delivered him to the seat of the Irish House of Desmond, the Fitzgerald rulers of most of Munster, sworn opponents of the Tudor outfit, who had earlier been a major part of the Simnel scam and knew a fraud when they saw one, especially when it was basically their own one being done again on the cheap. A message was sent to the earl saying that the young Prince Richard had arrived in town and was awaiting an audience, to which Desmond replied telling him to wait a few days in a certain inn in town where he'd be in good company as that's where all the other young Prince Richards were waiting too. The scammers didn't hang around long enough to thank the earl for his tourist tip. |
|
Vizzer
Censura
Posts : 1851
Join date : 2012-05-12
| | Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck Sat 14 Oct 2017, 14:24 | |
| Unlike Perkin Warbeck (who was almost certainly an imposter and not Richard, Duke of York) the case for ‘Lambert Simnel’ being Edward, Earl of Warwick isn’t so easily dismissed. A main plank of his case rests with the support given to his claim by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln who otherwise was himself the presumed (Yorkist) successor of King Richard III. By reneging on the oath of allegiance which de la Pole had given to Henry Tudor following the battle of Bosworth and by also discounting the parliamentary attainder of 1477 which disbarred George, Duke of Clarence and his issue from the succession (the attainder which was also central to Richard III’s own claim to the throne) the Earl of Lincoln was showing either an extraordinarily confused understanding of the constitutional legalities relating to the royal succession or else did genuinely believe that ‘Simnel’ was indeed the Earl of Warwick. If the latter was the case then such was Lincoln’s belief in the claim that it extended to him even prepared to lose his own life for that cause in the subsequent battle of Stoke.
The de la Poles have been described as being one the unluckiest titled families in England. The first de la Pole to receive a knighthood was William, a Yorkshire merchant who had made a fortune exporting wool from Hull to Bruges in the early decades of the 14th Century. So lucrative was the trade and such was his capital standing that he even began lending to the crown (a doubtful venture at any time). And when the financial crisis of the 1340s struck William was fully exposed. As a result of the crisis King Edward III first defaulted on his huge debts to the Florentine banking houses of Bardi and Peruzzi thus sending them to the wall and then turned on de la Pole demanding that he also write off his losses with threat of sending him to the tower.
Sir William’s great-grandson was another William who (by virtue of the family having being ennobled in the intervening generations by dint of service at Harfleur and Agincourt etc) was made Duke of Suffolk. He too saw service in France as commander of the English Plantagenet forces laying siege to Orleans but was captured by the Valois French as they mopped up the retreating English following the relief of Orleans in 1429. During his 3 years in captivity it’s believed that Suffolk had been ‘turned’ (in a 15th century equivalent of a Cold War spy story) and following his release he then worked as a Valois agent right at the heart of the Plantagenet court.
As Lord Chamberlain de la Pole arranged the dynastic marriage between King Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou in 1445 the terms of which pretty much undid those of the marriage of Henry’s father Henry V to Catherine of Valois. And as the military situation deteriorated in France and with Valois forces advancing thru Normandy itself, William became the obvious scapegoat. His cause wasn’t helped, however, by his (alleged) secret meetings (in London) with his erstwhile jailer (or handler) Jean, Count of Dunois ‘bastard of Orleans’ and nephew of King Charles VII of France. During those meetings Suffolk was said to have plotted with Dunois for a French invasion of England while also passing on State Council minutes to him. True or otherwise it’s not for nothing that Charles VII is nicknamed ‘le Bien-Servi’. Another accusation levelled against de la Pole was that he had betrothed his infant son John to none other than Margaret Beaufort (Henry VI’s cousin) and still a child herself, with a view to placing Margaret on the throne.
The fact that Plantagenet reverses in France were more down to developments in military technology (namely artillery) which the French had made a point of becoming proficient at, coupled with the switching of sides of the Burgundians (from Plantagenet to Valois) following the Treaty of Arras of 1435 didn’t seem to have bothered Suffolk’s accusers. He was duly impeached by parliament in 1450 and his sentence was banishment. But before he could reach Calais his ship was intercepted by a navy ship the Nicholas of the Tower and William was taken off and summarily beheaded. His gruesome remains were discovered the next day on a beach near Dover.
Yet here’s the thing. No-one admitted to ordering this extra-judicial killing. In fact all suspect parties denied responsibility. The case is still unsolved and the question of “Who murdered Jackanapes?” has yet to be answered. |
|
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK
| | Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck Sat 14 Oct 2017, 14:38 | |
| Oh, goody - something to get our teeth into... |
|
Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck | |
| |
|
...