 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / February 2007"Richard Plantagenet Stonemason"
King Richard III [1452-1485] and his wife Anne Beauchamp Neville [1456-1485] allegedly had a son, Richard, born in 1469, who was a simple stonemason, and who allegedly died in Eastwell, Kent in 1550 at age 81, or so. However, Richard and Anne married in 1472, so "Richard Plantagenet" would seem to have been a bastard by another mother -- if he existed. Richard, stonemason, allegedly kept his head down and on his shoulders, no small accomplishment in Tudor England as a Plantagenet of the wrong stripe. According to some accounts Richard lived in relative obscurity and performed a quite useful craft or trade. Do we know any details of the subsequent History of his line? Perhaps King Richard III has some competent masons as descendants to this day in Kent? Others have previously posted on this man -- and may do so again. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult D. Spencer Hines -- Lady Astor, nee Nancy Witcher Langhorne of Danville, Virginia [1879-1964] -- First Woman to serve as an MP -- [Conservative, Plymouth] -- a Teetotaller, Appeaser [Hostess for the "Cliveden Set"] and Ardent Francophobe; at a dinner party with Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965): "Winston, you're drunk!" WLSC: "Yes Madam, I am -- and you are ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be sober --- and you will still be ugly." But it was allegedly a different woman he said it to -- Bessie Braddock. Or the entire riposte may be an Urban Legend -- but a Great Story. DSH Fortem Posce Animum > King Richard III [1452-1485] and his wife Anne Beauchamp Neville [1456-1485] > allegedly had a son, Richard, born in 1469, who was a simple stonemason, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Others have previously posted on this man -- and may do so again. Oh they will, of that you can be certain! The Richard you speak of was not the son of Anne (nee Nevill), but the illegitimate product of a liason with someone young Gloucester impregnated as a teenager. He is rumoured to have had at least three illegitimate children before he was married to Anne, which rather undermines the notion that he was 'an early puritain' (as some claim). This was of course 'standard practice' amongst the higher nobility in late C15 England. There isn't really any reason to doubt this tale, and this 'Richard Jr' was quite well recorded and did exist - look him up. Had he been the son of Anne, he would have almost certainly kept very quiet about it, or been 'removed' with maximum prejudice by one of the Tudors... If you are seeking to bolster your claim to the throne of England, I'm afraid he was not only illegitimate but had no children, so forget it. We would never tolerate a 'King David' anyway... On the level, I would also advise caution in seeking further enlightenment on this matter, lest the ruffian in question had something to do with the KRS... you may have been hoodwinked! AVMartin > > King Richard III [1452-1485] and his wife Anne Beauchamp Neville [1456-1485] > > allegedly had a son, Richard, born in 1469, who was a simple stonemason, and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > AVMartin since when was being illegitimate a hinderence, william of normandy comes to mind, > > > King Richard III [1452-1485] and his wife Anne Beauchamp Neville > [1456-1485] [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > since when was being illegitimate a hinderence, william of normandy comes > to mind, No hindrance whatsoever, all you need is a big enough army (foreign mercenaries will do if you have the cash). Bastards on the throne have never worried the English much - whether illegitimate or not. w.nkers like DSH would never do however, you have to draw the line somewhere... > If you are seeking to bolster your claim to the throne of England, I'm afraid he > was not only illegitimate but had no children, so forget it. We would never > tolerate a 'King David' anyway... Well, that's true. The last King David had to call himself King Edward. >> If you are seeking to bolster your claim to the throne of England, I'm >> afraid he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, that's true. The last King David had to call himself King Edward. And he would maybe have been David III which would have caused as big an uproar amongst our southern brethern than the uproar when our present queen called herself Elizabeth II Allan > We would never tolerate a 'King David' anyway... But we did tolerate Kings Egbert, Aethelbald, Edwy, Edred, AEthelred, Cnut, Hardicnut, and Rufus. > > We would never tolerate a 'King David' anyway... > > But we did tolerate Kings Egbert, Aethelbald, Edwy, Edred, AEthelred, > Cnut, Hardicnut, and Rufus. Ethelread the Unready, Aethelstan the Glorious funny how Harold and Alfred made it through the years but when was the last tie anybody named a kid Aethelstan or Alaric. Asterix the Gaul was good stuff but it never caught on over here because Americans don't get the pun. >>>We would never tolerate a 'King David' anyway... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > funny how Harold and Alfred made it through the years but when was the last > tie anybody named a kid Aethelstan or Alaric. I know a couple of Alarics. Aethelstan would be shortened to Ethelstan, and so to "Stan" since Ethel- has become Ethel, a woman's name. > Asterix the Gaul was good stuff but it never caught on over here because > Americans don't get the pun. Some of us do. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.