GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1003337913


From: (Brad Verity)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Parentage of Alice (Camoys) Hastings
Date: 17 Oct 2001 09:58:33 -0700
References: <5cf47a19.0110142118.21528704@posting.google.com>, <005601c156ad$c7e9be00$6501a8c0@earthlink.net>


Dear Group,

Many thanks to those of you who verified Elizabeth Woodville's descent
from Henry III of England. Also thanks for verifying John Grey, Lord
Ferrers of Groby's descent from Edward I.

Mr. Hines has asked me to prove my statement that Elizabeth Woodville
was likely unaware of her descent from Henry III. Of course, I
cannot. It is only my guess, arriving at this conjecture because I
never once heard it mentioned in connection to her. I was under the
impression from books I've read that the Woodvilles were not
well-regarded, status-wise, among the nobility of England at the time
the marriage of Elizabeth to Edward IV was revealed. It seems to me,
if Elizabeth (and Jacquetta the Duchess of Bedford) were aware of this
descent (and their descent from the earlier Kings that Leo pointed
out), and placed much importance on it, mention of it would have been
made in 1465 when the marriage was made public, or possibly soon
afterwards when Edward V was born.

I'll have to do further research to see if mention was made at the
time, in the form of proclamation, pedigrees, etc. If there were,
then there is proof that Elizabeth was aware of her royal descent, and
was placing political importance on it. If there are no contemporary
references, pedigrees, or other mention of it, I would conclude she
(or her opponents in the establishment) placed no political
significance on it. Personal significance on it, as Mr. Hines pointed
out, can never be proved either way - unless a statement from her on
the subject is discovered.

Mr. Richardson's argument was that Elizabeth Woodville placed enough
significance on royal descent, specifically that from Edward III, that
it would be the motivating factor in her marriage arrangement in 1464
for her son {I'm assuming it was her son Thomas Grey) with the
as-yet-unborn daughter of Lord and Lady Hastings.

My counter argument, and I wish to thank Rosie Beven and Henry Sutliff
for further corroboration on it, is that the political and social
factors (Hastings has been described in the book "Royal Blood" by
Bertram Fields as the best friend of Edward IV) far outweighed any
royal descent factor, in the 1464 Grey/Hastings betrothal.

Final note: the fact that I disagree with Mr. Richardson's argument
regarding the 1464 betrothal does not mean I disrespect his work as a
genealogist or researcher. On the contrary, I appreciate his efforts
and get much pleasure out of his posts. He repeatedly uncovers
information that has been overlooked by previous sources like CP. The
1464 Grey/Hastings betrothal is not mentioned in CP, and it helps us
determine chronology for the children of Lord and Lady Hastings. We
now know that their daughter Anne had to have been born after May
1464, for example.

I hope this clarifies my previous post. Best regards, ------Brad
Verity


This thread: