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.
If you mean that Lincoln himself has blood but supports Warwick, it's strange... Indeed, the Earl of Lincoln is also of royal blood, but he is a descendant of the female line. Although he was older, the harm was obviously not as great as Warwick in that era (Henry VII immediately controlled Warwick, but allowed Lincoln to move freely). Don't forget Warwick's father's deep feelings for Ireland (as well as his feelings for the Countess of Burgundy). In fact, in Clarence's Deprivation Act, Warwick did not lose his right to the throne due to his father George's actions, and in the order of inheritance, he was greater than Lincoln.
In the big premise that "there has never been news of Edward V's life in Europe" (including Burgundy), the "son of King Edward" in Maximilian's letter and weapon receipt is more likely to be a recording error (they are more concerned about the interests of rebellion than the identity of a disguiser) (Tudor did record that Lambert first pretended to be Richard, the son of King Edward, and they may not be familiar with the new statement), which does not mean that Lambert is a puppet as Edward V, nor does it mean that someone believes that he is the son of Edward IV (Henry Richmond also has documents in France declaring that he is the son of Henry VI, which probably is a document error or a mistake. The propaganda of ordinary French people. Anne of France and the British who support Henry are not stupid enough not to know Henry's identity)
In 1526, Henry VIII wrote a letter mentioning Lambert as the false son of Edward IV. He also mentioned that chronicler Bernard Andrey said that Seymour was pretending to be the second son of Edward IV (so Richard, not Edward V). Lewis said that people may mistake Simmel for Warbeck, and Simmel did initially pretend to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the second son of Edward IV., Lewis also claimed that the Tudor dynasty rebuilt history Utilize the resources of the Tudor or pro Tudor dynasties to deal with them. This is somewhat contradictory. Andre was more interested in the noble deeds and bloodline of Henry VII, and was convinced that his enemies were imposters, but he simply did not care enough to ensure that he knew who they were impersonating
Lewis either ignored or forgot that the Marquis of Dorset is the guardian of Warwick. He also forgot that Dorset attempted to betray Henry VII in 1484. Dorset may have vested interests in supporting Warwick, which he has proposed for many years, and he can exert influence over Henry VII who does not appreciate him very much. It is worth noting that Henry VII did not arrest Edward or Richard Woodville, but instead arrested Thomas Gray alone. He is a weak link, not another Woodville. In the event of Edward V's return, preventive arrests would involve other members of the Woodville family. (As for Elizabeth Woodville... most of the new research on her in the past decade suggests that she was not under house arrest, and there is no evidence to suggest that she retired, which is a continuation of Virgil's account.) In 1487, Henry VII discussed her marriage alliance with Scotland, and she later attended the baptism of Margaret Tudor, the baptism of Henry VIII, and a mass. There may have been more records lost (Henry VII had given her gifts at two times, which may represent Elizabeth being with the royal family at the time). In 1491, Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort sponsored a publication with Elizabeth Woodville's logo on it (it seems that she did maintain friendly relations with the royal family)
"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." 👏🤣😅
Personally I cannot think that Ed V had he even been alive at this point - would have been happy in any way to have been crowned in Ireland. He left Ludlow for London. For his inheritance For his dynastic right to be King. I don t think a mock up of a coronation despite its spiritual meaning for Dublin would have done the job for him. This was not where he was meant to be and I think if it had been him - which it wasn t - he would have been a much more impressive figure than our Mr Lamb and that would have inevitably been noticed!
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.
If you mean that Lincoln himself has blood but supports Warwick, it's strange... Indeed, the Earl of Lincoln is also of royal blood, but he is a descendant of the female line. Although he was older, the harm was obviously not as great as Warwick in that era (Henry VII immediately controlled Warwick, but allowed Lincoln to move freely). Don't forget Warwick's father's deep feelings for Ireland (as well as his feelings for the Countess of Burgundy). In fact, in Clarence's Deprivation Act, Warwick did not lose his right to the throne due to his father George's actions, and in the order of inheritance, he was greater than Lincoln.
In the big premise that "there has never been news of Edward V's life in Europe" (including Burgundy), the "son of King Edward" in Maximilian's letter and weapon receipt is more likely to be a recording error (they are more concerned about the interests of rebellion than the identity of a disguiser) (Tudor did record that Lambert first pretended to be Richard, the son of King Edward, and they may not be familiar with the new statement), which does not mean that Lambert is a puppet as Edward V, nor does it mean that someone believes that he is the son of Edward IV (Henry Richmond also has documents in France declaring that he is the son of Henry VI, which probably is a document error or a mistake. The propaganda of ordinary French people. Anne of France and the British who support Henry are not stupid enough not to know Henry's identity)
In 1526, Henry VIII wrote a letter mentioning Lambert as the false son of Edward IV. He also mentioned that chronicler Bernard Andrey said that Seymour was pretending to be the second son of Edward IV (so Richard, not Edward V). Lewis said that people may mistake Simmel for Warbeck, and Simmel did initially pretend to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the second son of Edward IV., Lewis also claimed that the Tudor dynasty rebuilt history Utilize the resources of the Tudor or pro Tudor dynasties to deal with them. This is somewhat contradictory. Andre was more interested in the noble deeds and bloodline of Henry VII, and was convinced that his enemies were imposters, but he simply did not care enough to ensure that he knew who they were impersonating
Lewis either ignored or forgot that the Marquis of Dorset is the guardian of Warwick. He also forgot that Dorset attempted to betray Henry VII in 1484. Dorset may have vested interests in supporting Warwick, which he has proposed for many years, and he can exert influence over Henry VII who does not appreciate him very much. It is worth noting that Henry VII did not arrest Edward or Richard Woodville, but instead arrested Thomas Gray alone. He is a weak link, not another Woodville. In the event of Edward V's return, preventive arrests would involve other members of the Woodville family. (As for Elizabeth Woodville... most of the new research on her in the past decade suggests that she was not under house arrest, and there is no evidence to suggest that she retired, which is a continuation of Virgil's account.) In 1487, Henry VII discussed her marriage alliance with Scotland, and she later attended the baptism of Margaret Tudor, the baptism of Henry VIII, and a mass. There may have been more records lost (Henry VII had given her gifts at two times, which may represent Elizabeth being with the royal family at the time). In 1491, Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort sponsored a publication with Elizabeth Woodville's logo on it (it seems that she did maintain friendly relations with the royal family)
"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." 👏🤣😅
It's be hanged by Kildare if you don't support him and hanged by Henry if you do and he gets hold of you. The choices are inspiring. 🤣
lol
Great plug of your best selling book. Just ordered it, arriving tomorrow. Thank you.
Personally I cannot think that Ed V had he even been alive at this point - would have been happy in any way to have been crowned in Ireland. He left Ludlow for London. For his inheritance For his dynastic right to be King. I don t think a mock up of a coronation despite its spiritual meaning for Dublin would have done the job for him. This was not where he was meant to be and I think if it had been him - which it wasn t - he would have been a much more impressive figure than our Mr Lamb and that would have inevitably been noticed!
That s my tuppence worth ….