GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1044020371
Subject: Re: Henry Wriothesley
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:39:31 EST
In a message dated 31/01/03 00:46:53 GMT Standard Time,
From Jean Overton Fuller (much of which is in CP):-
Mary countess of Wriothesley seems to have been kicked out of Titchfield to
some lesser property. She was only allowed to communicate to the Earl via
his servant, Thomas Dymock, whom she hated. One letter of hers "My Lord sent
me word by Dymock the other day that it was not in his meaning to keep me as
a prisoner, nor to bar me of my libertie either within doors or without, only
he barred me to his board and presence ... "
The following presumably alludes to the charge of her adultery "And as for
the matter charged of Dogmarshfields [name difficult to read] and his coming
thither, he shall never prove it as he would, except he win some one to
perjure themselves about it, for, by my truth, in my life did I never see him
in that house, neither I assure your Lordship since I was by my lord
forbidden his company did I ever come in it. "
Overton Fuller also writes:
"Seeking to touch his heart, she sent her small son with a letter to him; he
did not read it, but kept the child, whom she never saw again so long as her
husband lived. When he died, on October 4th, 1581, he left a terrible will,
making Dymock his son's guardian and forbidding Mary, their daughter, ever to
be in the same house as her mother. Dymock was an executor of the will, and
none of the other executors, who included the Duke of Northumberland, could
[not] do anything without the consent of this servant. Dymock set off in
haste to get the will proved, and in her extremity the Countess wrote to the
Montagu[e]s' most powerful relation, the Earl of Leicester. Leicester laid
the matter immediately before the Queen, who had the will quashed. The
Countess' daughter was allowed to join her mother at Cowdray, and the young
3rd Earl aged eight was made a ward of Lord Burghley, and therefore spent the
rest of his minority at Theobalds, in Hertfordshire, and so became a
neighbour of Lady Burghley's sister, Lady Bacon, and her family."
I don't know if it is coincidence that the Wriothesley's obtained the title
of Earl of Southampton. Mary Browne's great-grandfather Sir Anthony Browne
was half brother to William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton (the previous
> R. Battle" <> wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 wrote:
> >> According to _Sir Francis Bacon, A Biography_ by Jean Overton Fuller,
> 1981 pp
> >> 104-111:
> >> ..."His [Henry Wriothesley] young wife was, however, permitted to visit
> >> and it was thus that their son Henry, the future 3rd Earl, was begotten
> >> the Tower.", but I am not sure of Overton Fuller's source, perhaps it
> >> been assume from the date of birth of their son, although if there had
> >> any doubts about the son's legitimacy (because visits were not
> >> this would have presumably been difficult to hide when the son succeeded
> >> father.
> >Thanks, Adrian. It would be interesting to know if the story of her
> >visiting her husband in the Tower had a source other than the date of the
> >younger Henry's birth. I assume that the mechanics and timelines of baby
> >production were well known, so the fact that nothing seems to have been
> >made of the date of birth would seem to indicate that there was no cause
> >for concern.
> For what it's worth, the DNB article on the second Earl gives some details
> on his imprisonment in the Tower, and follows it up with "(Acts P.C.
> 1571-5, pp. 92, 102, 109, 111, 130, 267)". I presume this refers to the
> Acts of the Privy Council. There may be further information there.
> The DNB article does not mention their (later) separation.
> William Addams Reitwiesner