#Lambert Simnel

[richmond-rex]

A big ask I know. But what is some evidence that the documentary conveniently ignored to push their survival narrative?

Evidence of the death of the princes is much less conclusive, because the only contemporary evidence we have are several chroniclers abroad and in England & Wales stating that the princes were murdered or were believed to have been murdered. There is more evidence that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors, though. From the top of my head: the Sétubal testimonies confessing Warbeck was not Richard of Shrewsbury, Maximilian I's own 1488 admission to Henry VII claiming he was duped by Margaret of York into backing an impostor (only to do the same again four years later), Perkin Warbeck's letter asking his mother in Tournai for money to pay his expenses in prison in England, and comments by foreign ambassadors who understood the situation was simply international politics.

For more precise scrutinising of the evidence on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck I really recommend Nathen Amin's Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders. He never explicitly says his opinion but the evidence he presents clearly points to a logical conclusion.

Now, one truly has to ask why Langley & co decided to discard their earlier Da Vinci code theory that Edward V lived out his days as John Evans in a small Devon village and instead chose to go with the by now often beaten theory that Lambert Simnel was Edward V. It doesn't make sense because those symbols/glass panels were the only genuine new evidence they found (even if imo it's not conclusive to Edward V's survival). The rest was already known since the 1950s.

[emperorcandy]

Thinking about Lambert Simnel the pretender and his life after the battle of Stoke Field

[intriguingpeoplebyangelafloyd]

LAMBERT SIMNEL

LAMBERT SIMNEL

c.1477-c.1535

Pretender to the English throne

            Simnel was only a child when he was taken as a pupil by priest Richard Simon (Symonds) who groomed him to be king. He tutored the boy in etiquette and gave him a good education. At first he wanted Simnel to pretend to be Richard, Duke of York, the youngest son of Edward IV.

            Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, was executed for treason in 1499 aged 24. Simon then decided to pose Simnel as the Earl of Warwick and spread the rumour that he wasn’t executed and had instead escaped. He took Simnel to Ireland and was presented to the head of the Irish government, the Earl of Kildare. Kildare was willing to go along with the story in order for Henry VII to be overthrown. Simnel was paraded through the streets and was carried on the shoulders of Yorkist supporters and was crowned in Church as King Edward VI, in 1487, aged 10.

            The Yorkist rebellion was organised by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln who wanted to overthrow King Henry VII of England. Henry VII was informed of the rebellion and gathered his troops, Simnel’s army consisted of Flemish and Irish troops who landed in Lancashire in June 1487 who were joined by English rebels. They came to battle at the Battle of Stoke Field and were defeated. The leading conspirators were executed, exception of Simons because he was a priest, his punishment was to be imprisoned for life

            Simnel was too young to have been the real Earl of Warwick and was pardoned. Henry VII knew that the young man was just used as a puppet figure for the Yorkist rebels. Simnel was given a job working in King Henry VII’s kitchen as a servant. Simnel later became a falconer and later as a Groom of the Stool (a highly desirable position at the time). He most likely married and was the father of Richard Simnel who was a clergyman at St Osyth’s Priory, Essex during the reign of Henry VIII.  Lambert Simnel died at the age of 57.

#lambertsimnel

[thefreelancehistorywriter]

Book Review: “Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck and Warwick” by Nathen Amin

My initial reaction of disbelief to the new ‘revelations’ regarding the Princes in the Tower has not changed, even after viewing the BBC program on US Public TV. In fact, that program was just embarrassing. There is no doubt the documents discovered and viewed are authentic and from the time period in question. Of course, Maximilian provided troops and supplies. Yes, Perkin Warbeck promised the…

[tudorblogger]

‘Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck, and Warwick’ by Nathen Amin

‘Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck, and Warwick’ by Nathen Amin

Thanks to Amberley Publishing for a copy of this book to review. This is an incredibly detailed and interesting book focused on the reign of Henry VII and the problems he had with pretenders like Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, as well as threats from those with real and legitimate claims like the Princes in the Tower and the Earl of Warwick. It is so detailed I had to go back and re-read…

[nostalgia-tblr]

Here we go, here we goooooooooo!!!

[stonelord1]

WHO IN THE WORLD WAS RALPH WILFORD?

Everyone interested in the late medieval/early Tudor era will have heard of the two ‘pretenders’ to Henry VII‘s ill-gotten throne–Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. However, there was a third pretender as well, and I admit I did not realise this myself till a few weeks ago when I stumbled across his story. His name was Ralph Wulford or Wilford and he appears on the scene a little after Perkin…

[goodqueenaly]

Do you think Gaemon Palehair really was Aegon II's bastard, or that at least Aegon III believed he was?

Maybe? On a purely practical level, at least, Gaemon being the son of the future King Aegon II does not seem impossible. Aegon the Elder was certainly living in King’s Landing at the time Gaemon was conceived, and if Gaemon’s mother was herself already living in King’s Landing (and there is no indication that she and Gaemon settled in King's Landing after the latter's birth), there was a possibility of the two meeting and conceiving a son. Even if Gaemon was not necessarily that “boy [Aegon fathered] on a girl whose maidenhood [Aegon] won at auction on the Street of Silk”, according to Mushroom’s gossipy report, this alleged patronage in the sex workers of King’s Landing on Aegon’s part may provide an explanation as to how Aegon the Elder could have fathered Gaemon. Gaemon’s pale hair, of course, could easily be read as an inheritance from his father or other Targaryen antecedents: while we don’t have full details on Aegon’s appearance, GRRM’s report that Aegon bore “a strong resemblance to his father” (who himself had a “silver-gold mustache”) certainly suggests that Aegon also had the pale hair common to Valyrian descendants. Too, it may be notable that unlike the would-be king Trystane Trufyre or the Shepherd, Gaemon was pardoned and made a ward of the crown - a rare act of mercy in the twilight of Aegon II’s reign which perhaps indicates some personal investment on the part of the king in Gaemon’s well-being.

At the same time, I would not say Gaemon being Aegon II’s son is a foregone conclusion. While we should certainly consider the fact that the information came under torture, Essie’s admission that Gaemon’s biological father was a Lysene oarsman is at least a possible explanation for both Gaemon’s existence and his pale hair. Likewise, we have no indication that Aegon II thought particularly fondly of the boy; indeed, unlike with Trystane (where it was Aegon himself who knighted the would-be squire king before the latter was executed), Aegon doesn’t seem to have interacted with Gaemon at all, and the passive voice used by Gyldayn to describe Gaemon’s pardon makes it impossible to tell who directed that decision. (Too, Borros Baratheon’s rough treatment of Gaemon at the time of his capture - “carried back to the Red Keep slung over the back of a horse, chained and weeping” - hardly suggests that he knew, or had been instructed to know, that he was dealing with a king’s son.) There is in fact some real-world historical precedent from which GRRM may be drawing for showing mercy on such a figure: when young Lambert Simnel, probably about 10 years old, was proclaimed “King Edward VI” as the figurehead of a failed Yorkist rebellion against King Henry VII, the first Tudor king showed the boy mercy, not only not executing him but actually giving him a position at court (first in the royal kitchens, and eventually as a court falconer). Nor do I read Aegon III’s affection for Gaemon as indicating some secret knowledge of the latter’s supposed royal lineage: not only would Aegon III himself have had no reason to know who Gaemon’s biological father was, but Gyldayn makes it pretty explicit that Aegon’s care for Gaemon came as a direct result of the young king’s sorrow over the (supposed) loss of his own younger brother, Viserys (and to that point, Gyldayn notes that after “Prince Viserys … became King Aegon’s constant companion” following his return, “Gaemon Palehair was cast aside and forgotten”).

Ultimately, I would say the answer doesn’t really matter, both because we’ll probably never get the objective truth on the matter and because the narrative does not really dwell on the question. Gyldayn merely refers to Gaemon as “supposedly a bastard of the missing King Aegon II” and later as a “bastard born of a whore” (and specifically used the last designation to explain why Gaemon “counted for little in the court”); there is, so far as we know, no investigation into Gaemon’s paternal origins, no allusions to his paternity (as compared to, say, Alyn Velaryon, where Willis Fell openly identified him as having “a snake for a sire”), no hints by anyone save his mother as to who might have fathered him. As GRRM himself once noted, “[w]ithout blood tests or DNA, establishing paternity was a lot more hit and miss”, and I think that’s probably the case with Gaemon. Young Gaemon's potential blood connection to Aegon II matters only in the sense that his mother seized upon it (or the idea of it) to present him as a king; if he might have otherwise grown up in obscurity as one of the many lowborn children of King’s Landing, Gaemon was instead, thanks to that claim, subjected to a roller coaster of pseudo-royalty, violent upheaval, courtly semi-protection, and ultimately horrific murder.

[ezekiel13]

Can I have a fun fact? :3

Fun fact: the Renaissance (in England) is said as starting in the year 1485, the year Henry VII came to the throne after defeating Richard III at Bosworth field.

The year is totally arbitrary as there weren’t any drastic changes that year, but by Henry VIII we were in the Renaissance so they had to pick a year.

Bonus: the War of the Roses did not end in 1485 with the Battle of Bosworth field, but rather in the year 1487, after the failed Lambert Simnel Rebellion

[richmond-rex]

I think your last point is very likely. There was no difference for Maximilian if (fake) Edward of Warwick was Edward IV's son or nephew, all that he needed was someone with a viable claim to challenge Henry VII. Likewise, the same thing happened with Henry when he was in France: some of the official French documentation referred to him as Henry VI's son ('fils cadet') not nephew. Whether they didn't know exactly what kind of relative Henry Tudor was, or whether they were purposely lying to boost his claim, it made no difference to the support they offered him with the intention of booting Richard III off the throne.

So what's the new evidence anyway?

Summing up the 'new evidence' about the Princes in the Tower

1. They found Maximilian of Austria's receipt (for the payment of pikes) calling Lambert Simnel Edward IV's son instead of Edward IV's nephew (Warwick) so that would somehow prove Edward V survived. They try to convince us into trusting the word of a ruler who by his own admission in 1488 claimed he was duped by his mother-in-law into supporting a fake prince and then four years later did exactly the same thing again.

2. They also ask us to believe in a survival account provided by Perkin Warbeck because it's so detailed it's 'compelling', but they won't accept the same from Thomas More, for example, regardless of how detailed or how many names are provided in More's account (the good old picking and choosing).

3. They present a 'Richard' signature which is supposedly such a bold statement in itself it could only be the real name of the person who wrote it, as if the man pretending to be Richard of Shrewsbury would ever sign his documents with any other name.

These are truly abysmally poor arguments. It's like John Reeks said: this is not history, this is a PR campaign dashed with a side of intellectual dishonesty. If your argument can't be supported by real solid evidence it's not history, it's wishful thinking.

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in Irish History | 24 May:

1487 – Lambert Simnel (aged 10), the Yorkist pretender to the English throne, is brought to Ireland. It is claimed that he is Edward, Earl of Warwick (Clarence’s son), but in fact, he is a baker’s son – the real Warwick is a prisoner in the Tower of London and will be executed in 1499. Most of the Anglo-Irish believe that Simnel’s claim is genuine and support him (exceptions are the Butlers,…

[cappymightwrite]

I think Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love but they had a sad sending.

And you're very much entitled to have that opinion, anon.

For me... I do lean towards it being a tragic story in a different way and actually it's kind of interesting to think about, since I did watch 'The Princes in the Tower: Lucy Worsley Investigates' last night.

Obviously those two stories seem unrelated, but it's notable that when you have these kinds of mysteries, what happened to such and such, there is a tendancy to romanticise the outcome, e.g. a substantial group of people believe that Edward V and Prince Richard weren't killed under Richard III's orders, but instead survived into the reign of Henry VII to challenge him as the pretenders Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, respectively. I think Aegon/Young Griff's narrative is a play on that and I like the idea of the ambiguity around his identity never truly being put to bed. He could be the real deal, he might not be, but his story harks back to these real historical figures and the impact they had on succession during the Wars of the Roses. It's more interesting, narratively, if the question is never answered, I think, but instead strong cases can be made for both sides and how does that impact the characters Aegon comes into contact with.

But anyway, back to R + L. Whether there was love involved, what I am certain of is that Rhaegar was probably far more goal-orientated and manipulative, rather than romantically tragic, dying for love etc., than most people in this fandom are willing to admit/consider.

You know, he's described as having been very bookish as a child, keeping to himself, not really playing with other children. And as an adult, it is said "no man ever knew Prince Rhaegar, truly" (ASOS, Daenerys I). This paints an interesting picture of a man, still kind of vague, but potentially quite an insular and closed off person. Add to that the Targ exceptionalism and the weight and expectation of being heir, could this be someone who perhaps only thinks of the bigger picture in terms of their own involvement, their own justifications? Someone who only thinks of the individual, if that individual is himself? My point is, I find his characterisation, what we get of it, as not the least be ominous, rather than signaling a romantic hero.

Indeed, not unlike Edward I of England, who was himself obsessed with Arthurian prophecy, it's strongly suggested that Rhaegar apparently read something in an ancient scroll — the Azor Ahai/PTWP prophecy — that changed his outlook substantially and prompted him to make a commitment to training as a warrior.

To circle back to Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, I can understand why people want to believe him incapable of such coldness, that like stories of the Romanovs, the princes might have survived, and undoubtedly Shakespeare's play exaggerates Richard and plays into ableist tropes, NEVERTHELESS... there's also no doubt in my mind that he did have them killed because why would he keep threats to his power alive? But I digress, my point is... Rhaegar like Richard, had a certain goal that took precedence over moral mores — Richard's was seizing the throne and Rhaegar's, which perhaps harks back to an earlier period of English medieval history, was this obsession with and the subsequent fufilment of this prophecy. In both cases, other individuals, innocents even, become collateral damage in the pursuit of these higher purposes.

So, no. I don't read R + L as a tragic love story, I see it as more reflective of the ugliness and ruthlessness of medieval monarchies, because the thing is... for the War of the Roses, which ASOIAF apparently takes strong inspo from, was very much a dog eat dog period in history. And killing off your opponents to power was the accepted mentality, but it was actually during the Victorian period (see Millais' famous painting) that the story of the princes took on this romanticisation in the way we recognise it today. That's not to say people weren't interested by the story earlier than that (see Thomas More, whose writing Shakespeare based his play on), but their treatment of it was different. What I'm trying to say is, for me, it's a more interesting reading to consider Rhaegar having a particular, very goal-orientated medieval mentality of I have to father the prince that was promised by any means necessary for the sake of an unindividualised concept of humanity... and also the glory of my house and my own personal legacy.

But much like Richard, we may never know if Rhaegar ever grappled with any of this, if he ever felt guilt or regret for the murders that resulted from his actions, if he did love Lyanna in some way... or if she, like perhaps the princes for Richard, were just something to take possession of and then a means to an end. And I hope we don't ever know, because that's more reflective of real history, but the important thing is we do consider that ugly, ruthless side of things, rather than brush it under the rug in favour of a prettier, gentler story.

Thanks for the ask, anon! And once again, just want to reiterate that I completely respect your own interpretation. To each their own! 😊

[fionamccall]

Foundling names

At the Foundling Museum they have displays listing some of the new names given to the Foundlings when they arrived.

I was struck by how many of these were literary, historical or fanciful - a projection of the donors' fantasies on children - was this a kind thing to do or treating children a bit like naming a puppy? What did it mean to go through life saddled with the name Oliver Cromwell or William Shakespeare?

Names included:

Historical: Julius Caesar; Edward Plantagenet; Lambert Simnel; Edmund Ironside; Henry Agincourt; Emma Plantagenet

Tudor: Charles Brandon; Catherine Parr; Walter Raleigh; Francis Drake

Civil War: Oliver & Richard Cromwell; Edward Montagu; William Chillingworth

17thc/18th: Gilbert Sheldon; William Orange; Billy Culloden

Admirals: Admiral Benbow and Coram Benbow; Cloudesley Shovel

Literary: Robin Hood; Tom Jones and his love Sophia Western; Geoffrey Chaucer; Phillip Sydney; Alexander Pope; Nahum Tate; Samuel Johnson; William Shakespeare

Artists: Michael Angel; Inigo Jones; William Hogarth (possibly a bit confusing given his association with the hospital?); Anthony Vandyke; Peter Paul Reuben; Christopher Wren; Godfrey Kneller; Mary Addison; Richard Steel; John Dryden

Scientists: Francis Bacon; Edmund Halley

Virtues: Hopegood Helpless (a bit of puritanism coming in there perhaps?); Diana Thrifty; Prudence Friendly

Birds: Mary Dodo; Mary Swallow; Deborah Lark

Interesting to see one John Doe on the list as well - I thought this was a later, American thing.

[jezabelofthenorth]

i knew the lambert simnel thing was going to be insane and there is a reason very few ricardians have claimed he was actually edward v

so first of all look at this, this is how she presents her "evidence" this is just NOT how you write a history book starting off with "king edward has now been positively identified" NO HE HASN'T you can not be approaching your sources like this and claim this is a good faith endeavor for the "truth" and not just hackish ricardian propaganda, which it what it is

she then goes on to claim, with no evidence, that simnel's claim to be warwick was made up by henry vii and in her book she is showing there was confusion on who simnel was claiming to be edward v or warwick, she also claims henry vii made up the date of simnel's "coronation" in dublin from the 24th of may when it was really the 27th because monarchs were crowned on sundays, she cites absolutely no evidence of this claim, she also claims that simnel's later life as a kitchen boy then a falconer was also invented by henry vii, again no evidence supporting this theory

[snapheart1536]

Sorry if it's a dumb question. But if people say Lambert or Perkin were the Princes, why did they wait so long to come back?

Richard stole their birthright slurred them their mother and sisters as a whore and bastards. So why the hell did they never appear in his reign and get an army? Yeah it's a short time and they were young but no one's asking them to fight. Plenty of men would've helped.

Like if everyone thought they were dead, Henry's sorta avenging them by killing Richard and marrying Elizabeth. He's the good guy! So why wait.

The best explanation I have is Richard was holding them, and would've kept them in prison until they died, but when Bosworth happened someone let them out.

I mean, if they lived, wouldn't taking two boys hostage, killing protective male family, and never letting them see their mother again, and never have any life at all, be pretty shitty behavior as it is?

So it's kind of a paradox. If Richard didn't kill them, even if they weren't Perkin or Lambert, he was expecting to leave them in jail forever. So he ruined their lives and was cruel for no reason. If he was ready to hurt two children, he sounds like the type of guy who would finish the job and kill them.

So if I follow the whole "they survived" theory through, Richard ends up sounding guilty anyway.

Well, do you know why Lambert Simmel's revolt never happened during Richard III's reign?

Because the rebellion was made by Ricardians. It's Richard III's sister funding mercenaries led by Richard III's former Lieutenant of Ireland/nephew and his former best friend, landing on Richard III's stronghold and attracting Richard III's former supporters (the Harringtons, Broughtons, Scropes).

Lambert Simmel being Edward V. Makes. No. Damn. Sense.

As for Perkin Warbeck, the fact that he waited years speaks volumes on his authenticity. He was aware that this was an issue, hence his justifications about his brother Edward V being killed by people whom he does not name the sponsor before being put in custody by said killers who seemingly have no trouble killing a 13-year-old but think it's too immoral to kill a 10-year-old. Then they free him after a bunch of years in Flanders.

Two options: either they work for Richard III, in which case they should have no trouble freeing him after he gets killed. Either they work for the Tudors/Tudor-linked, in which case he wouldn't ever be free. What convince me that Perkin Warbeck isn't Richard of Shrewsbury is his own weird version of events, not whatever his opponents said.

And indeed, it's to vindicate Richard III but less as an innocent man than a victim of his time. In the long run, they can't canonize him, considering many of his past deeds. But what they wanna do is pin the portrayal of someone unfairly treated by his contemporaries and posterity. Using a famous mystery in which one can muddy the waters enough to instigate doubts is great for them because then, they can avoid talking about his career as a duke, his actions as a general or his very real ambitions and aspirations. I do not get their hyperfixation on Richard III & morality. I personally outgrew it when I was 16 years old. Richard III doesn't interest me for that. Their picture of a martyred (?), progressive (??), proto-socialist (???) Duke of Gloucester is so strange it's a bit fascinating.