Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found!

lily wrote:Hope so, Bonny.  Let's face it, any of us could be descended from Richard III.  

John of Gloucester:

   John was knighted at York by his father on the 8th September 1483 as part of the celebrations to mark the investiture of Richard’s legitimate son, Edward, as Prince of Wales.
   A patent dated 11th March 1485 granted to ‘ our dear barsteward son, John of Gloucester’ of the offices of Captain of Calais, and of the fortresses of Rysbank, Guisnes, Hammes, and Lieutenant of the Marches of Picardy for his life. The patent also describes John as having ‘liveliness of mind, activity of body, and inclination to all good customs (which) promise us, by the grace of God, great hope of his good service for the future’. It is in the initial notice of this appointment to the Captaincy of Calais that John is referred to as John de Pountfreit barsteward, giving us the clue to his birthplace.
   A warrant to deliver clothing to ‘the Lord barsteward’ dated two days before on 9th March 1485, almost certainly refers to John and not to Edward V as has sometimes been suggested.
   We know that John survived his father because Henry VII made him a grant on 1st March 1486: ‘to John de Gloucester, barsteward, of an annual rent of  £20 during the King’s pleasure, issuing out of the revenues of the lordship or manor of Kyngestonlacy, parcel of the duchy of Lancaster, in co. Dorset’. (Those of you who have been following my history of the de Lacy family will be delighted to note that John’s annuity came from the revenues of Kingston Lacy in Dorset which had once belonged to Henry de Lacy.)
   George Buck claims that John was executed in 1499 around the time of the executions of Perkin Warbeck and Edward, Earl of Warwick. He says: ‘There was a base son of King Richard III made away, and secretly, having been kept long before in prison.” He quotes the Grafton Chronicle as his source, but I can’t find it so I don’t think it can be relied upon. And if John had been kept in prison would he have been granted an annuity?
   Although John disappears from public records after 1499, it is possible that he lived on.  He may even have had children, which is an interesting concept because it would mean that Richard III may have some direct descendants still living!

Katherine Plantagenet:

   One thing we know for sure about Katherine is that she married William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon. On 29th February, 1484 he covenanted ‘to take to wife Dame Katherine Plantagenet, daughter to the King, before Michaelmas of that year’. This covenant does not really give us a clue as to her age as marriages were often arranged for children, but it’s probable that she was in her early to late teens. Richard agreed to bear the whole cost of the marriage and undertook to settle manors, lordships, lands and tenements to a value of 1000 marks per annum on them and the ‘heirs male of their two bodies’. This was a sizeable sum and it is thought that Richard wanted to reward William Herbert for his support.
   Lands to the value of 600 marks were given to the couple on the day of their marriage. The remainder of the lands, worth 400 marks, would pass to them after the death of Lord Thomas Stanley. During his lifetime they were to have an annuity of 400 marks drawn from the revenues of the lordships of Newport, Brecknock and Hay. These manors were ones which had been confiscated from Margaret Beaufort and given to her husband, Lord Stanley.
   The marriage took place before May 1484 when a grant of the proceeds of various manors in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset was made to ‘William Erle of Huntingdon and Kateryn his wif’. On 8 March 1485 a further grant was made to the Earl and Katherine his wife of an annuity of £152 10.10 from the issues of the King’s possessions in the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan, and from those of the King’s lordship of Haverfordwest.
   Nothing more is known about Katherine. There is no record of any children from the marriage and it is thought that she may have died young as at the coronation of Elizabeth of York, Earl Huntingdon is described as a widower.  

Judicial Review Judgement

At 10 am this morning (23 May) in Court 3, Royal Courts of Justice, London, Lady Justice Hallett handed down the Judgement of the Judicial Review held on 13th and 14th March this year before herself, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave.

The application by the Plantagenet Alliance challenged

(1) the Secretary of State for Justice that the Exhumation Licence granted on 3 September 2012 was issued ‘without consulting, or attaching requiring the licencee to consult, as to how [or where] the remains of Richard III should be appropriately re-interred in the event that they were found.
(2) The Decision of the Secretary of State for Justice on 4 February 2013 and subsequently ‘not to re-visit the grant of the Licence once it became clear the University would not carry out an appropriate consultation’
(3) The Decision of the University of Leicester on 4 February 2013 ‘to begin making arrangements for the re-interment of the remains of Richard III at Leicester Cathedral’.
The judgement reads ‘there are no public law grounds for the Court interfering with the decisions in question. In the result, therefore, the Claimant’s application for Judicial Review is dismissed’.

A postscript was added:
‘Since Richard III’s exhumation on 5 September 2012, passions have been roused and much ink has been split. Issues relating to his life and death and place of re-interment have been exhaustively examined and debated. The Very Reverend David Monteith, the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, has explained the considerable efforts and expenditure invested by the Cathedral in order to create a lasting burial place “as befits an anointed King”. We agree that it is time for Richard III to be given as dignified reburial, and finally laid to rest.’

This judgement upholding the original licence granted to the University of Leicester by the Ministry of Justice now means that it is the hands of the university to follow through the requirements of that licence and they confirm that the reburial of King Richard III will go ahead as planned in Leicester Cathedral. The Society will work constructively with the cathedral to help bring this about. Consideration, however, should also now be given to the need for his remains to be removed to an appropriate place of sanctity before their re-burial.

The full judgement is available online at:
http://richardiii.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=a9f74944a5&e=37bf1718ce

The Richard III Society’s Chairman, Phil Stone, commented ‘ I am very pleased that there has been a clear cut decision. It means that we can now move forward and reinter King Richard with the dignity and sanctity that is due to an anointed king of England. Understandably, the judgement will be a disappointment to the Plantagenet Alliance and its supporters, and indeed to many of our own members, but I hope that we can now all put the disagreements behind us and join together to honour King Richard when he is laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral.

bb1 wrote:From the judgement:

(7) The Palace and the Duke of Gloucester had been consulted and kept informed.
The Palace had been consulted about a Royal funeral for Richard III and reburial
in Westminster Abbey (a Royal Peculiar), but HM The Queen did not express a
wish for either. The Secretary of State knew, therefore, that HM Queen was
content with Leicester Cathedral as the reburial place and was not advocating an
alternative. He would also, presumably, have been aware that Henry VII had
approved of Richard III’s burial site having paid for an alabaster tomb for him to
be erected at Grey Friars in 1495 (see above)

I think that trumps the shrieking harridans?