On 24 May 1487, a king was crowned in Dublin. This was Edward, King of England and of France, and Lord of Ireland. Or was he? Much has been written about the Lambert Simnel conspiracy that erupted that year, its origins seemingly in Oxfordshire before the plot shifted across the Irish Sea. Indeed, I have written at length about it in my (here comes the plug) bestselling book ‘
"don't shoot the messenger" wasn't considered by Kildare in this circumstance was it? Really interesting that Butler held so strong to his loyalty to Henry VII even with the influence of Kildare. Do you think it was purely loyalty to the crown or was he a rival of Kildare and that might have pushed him to be so staunch in his convictions and calling Simnel's supporters traitors ?
Also you had me 😂 at "please consider picking up a copy of my book which is available from all reputable and some not so reputable book retailers." 👏🤣😅
I don't believe they crowned a 10 year old boy. Lambert Simnel was nobody and was used either to deflect the story or as a decoy. I believe the boy they crowned was at least 15 or 16. But who was he and more importantly who was he actually meant to be? Maybe if Henry hadn't destroyed the Irish Parliament who met to proclaim him records we might have known a bit more. I know, I know, Henry did that because it was not in his eyes a legitimate Parliament and it was rebellious so the records were destroyed in that context. He couldn't know a load of historians would be watching 500 years later.🤣. According to Andre he was meant to be a son of Edward iv. The allocation of the regnal no in the York Book is much later as a note. So for some he was the son of Edward iv, others he was the son of Clarence, at the time, young Warwick held by Henry in the Tower of London. Across Europe many sources called him a son of Clarence. He had landed with support from the sister of Richard iii and Edward iv, Margaret of Burgundy. Much has been made of documents to supply weapons for him. The problem is his ID is no closer to being confirmed today than it was 500 years ago. Henry later found a young boy on the battlefield after Stoke and claimed this boy crowned in Dublin was Lambert Simnel, a boy trained to be young Warwick. He put him in the kitchens and later he served as a royal falconry, living until at least 1516. Was he really the boy crowned in Dublin or a convenient boy to blame and show the Dublin King as a fake? I don't think they were the same person. I think many that day at least believed or wanted to believe he was of significant royal blood. A coronation was a very holy thing and the behaviour of those of royal blood like John de la Pole is curious as is that of his potential mother, Queen Mum, Elizabeth Wydville. Sadly, we are left with too many questions and we can't ID him. It's a fascinating story and for me far more interesting than the Perkin Warbeck affair.
"don't shoot the messenger" wasn't considered by Kildare in this circumstance was it? Really interesting that Butler held so strong to his loyalty to Henry VII even with the influence of Kildare. Do you think it was purely loyalty to the crown or was he a rival of Kildare and that might have pushed him to be so staunch in his convictions and calling Simnel's supporters traitors ?
Also you had me 😂 at "please consider picking up a copy of my book which is available from all reputable and some not so reputable book retailers." 👏🤣😅
I don't believe they crowned a 10 year old boy. Lambert Simnel was nobody and was used either to deflect the story or as a decoy. I believe the boy they crowned was at least 15 or 16. But who was he and more importantly who was he actually meant to be? Maybe if Henry hadn't destroyed the Irish Parliament who met to proclaim him records we might have known a bit more. I know, I know, Henry did that because it was not in his eyes a legitimate Parliament and it was rebellious so the records were destroyed in that context. He couldn't know a load of historians would be watching 500 years later.🤣. According to Andre he was meant to be a son of Edward iv. The allocation of the regnal no in the York Book is much later as a note. So for some he was the son of Edward iv, others he was the son of Clarence, at the time, young Warwick held by Henry in the Tower of London. Across Europe many sources called him a son of Clarence. He had landed with support from the sister of Richard iii and Edward iv, Margaret of Burgundy. Much has been made of documents to supply weapons for him. The problem is his ID is no closer to being confirmed today than it was 500 years ago. Henry later found a young boy on the battlefield after Stoke and claimed this boy crowned in Dublin was Lambert Simnel, a boy trained to be young Warwick. He put him in the kitchens and later he served as a royal falconry, living until at least 1516. Was he really the boy crowned in Dublin or a convenient boy to blame and show the Dublin King as a fake? I don't think they were the same person. I think many that day at least believed or wanted to believe he was of significant royal blood. A coronation was a very holy thing and the behaviour of those of royal blood like John de la Pole is curious as is that of his potential mother, Queen Mum, Elizabeth Wydville. Sadly, we are left with too many questions and we can't ID him. It's a fascinating story and for me far more interesting than the Perkin Warbeck affair.