#c: Prince Henry of Wales

[immortalmuses]

i cannot with this man

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

“Editing Archie's birth certificate.”

How?

When Archie was born, the birth certificate identified his father as His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex and his mother was identified as Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex, as shown below:

Identifying Meghan this way (with her first and middle name) follows the then-Cambridges' birth certificates, where Kate was identified as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.

On 6 June 2019, Archie's birth certificate was amended. Harry's name was corrected to "His Royal Highness Prince Harry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex and Meghan's name was corrected to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

Identifying Meghan this way follows William's and Harry's birth certificates, where Diana was identified as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales.

The updates to the birth certificate were not made public/known until January 2021 (hence why, in the image above, it's dated 1/21/2021 - someone requested a copy of the birth certificate and the copy was certified on 1/21/2021.

When this first leaked in public by The Sun, chasing a scoop by Lady C, everyone assumed the Sussexes made the change but Meghan hit back pretty hard insisting it was the palace that made the changes. Which I believe...partially.

The palace absolutely would've insisted on an amendment to change Harry's name so that he's properly identified as Prince, which had been left out. That's something they're all over.

I don't believe that the palace demanded changing Meghan's name on the birth certificate because they had no issue with Kate having her names identified. I think that particular request came from the Sussexes, specifically to give homage to and link to Diana.

The Sun's article:

Archived Link

[pwlanier]

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, with Sir John Harington in the Hunting Field, 1603. Robert Peake the Elder (English, c. 1551–1619). Oil on canvas

Courtesy Alain Truong

[une-sanz-pluis]

Father and Son

Henry Bolingbroke recognized as king by the parliament, his son the Prince of Wales beside him (BL Harley Ms. 1319 f.57r, detail) | Oscar Wilde, A Woman Of No Importance | Henry IV of England and his son, Henry, Prince of Wales (later Henry V), from the Great Cowacher of the dukes of Lancaster, c. 1402 (The National Archives, DL 42/1-2) | Ollie Schminkey, Dead Dad Jokes | Stained glass at York Minster, depicting Henry IV (right) and Henry V (left) | Sophokles, Elektra (trans. Anne Carson) | Kings Screen at York Minster, depicting (l-r) Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V

[gardenofbookworms]

week #24 recommendation: rose

Red, White, & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston

▪︎ romance novel ▪︎

alex and henry have never been friends, but they've always had to maintain an outwardly amicable relationship. because, you see, alex is the son of the president united states, and henry is the prince of wales. a public fight between them would probably make british-u.s. relations take a turn for the worse.

so when the two nearly come to blows at a wedding and knock over the extremely expensive cake in the process... well, let's just say that it's time for damage control. alex and henry have to establish a (fake) friendship, purely for the purpose of showing the world that it was just a huge misunderstanding. of course, alex still thinks henry is the stuffiest, fakest person in the world, and henry... really, only henry knows what henry thinks. but as the two are forced unravel things that keep them apart, they find they're not as different as they think. and maybe, just maybe, they're diving deep into something that takes them long past "just friends"—something which neither of them can turn away from.

▪︎

for as long as i've known a) what "gay" means, b) how to read, and c) that this book existed, i wanted to read it. i finally got around to it earlier this year, and i have to say—holy fucking shit. if i could leave it at that, i would. but. words. first off, this is, hands down, one of the best enemies-to-lovers romance novels out there. the witty banter, the ridiculous enemies-establishing-fight, that time they ended up in a closet together... ah, it's all beautifully written. and the progression from reluctant allies to friends to confidants to something more is perfectly slow and fast at the same time. and the forbidden romance. i literally have no words. nor do i really have much more to say about this, except: witty humor, tender emotional moments, general spiciness, and the best romance tropes out there. that's what you're getting into with this book. and it sure as hell is amazing.

[grandmaster-anne]

c. 1930s: The Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VIII), The Duke of York (the future King George VI), Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Prince George, Duke of Kent

[harryofderby]

Thomas Hoccleve dedicating the Regement of Princes to Henry, Prince of Wales ( the future Henry V) from a manuscript c. 1420

[wanderlandgracie]

LONDON

Hello friends! So beginning my trip to Europe, we landed in London at 12:30ish on May 23, 2023. After the unfathomably long plane ride, which I thankfully slept through, we were all exhausted, yet hopeful for the weeks ahead of us. The rest of that day was spent resting and mingling in the hotel.

The next day, we went to Hyde Park, a beautiful expanse of green space much like Central Park in New York City, although much older and history-rich. With its sprawling green and luscious plant life, the park was originally used as a hunting reserve by King Henry VIII, yes that one. Interestingly enough though, James I opened it to the public in the early 17th century, and since then it has been a sight of great popularity in London. One location of particular interest in the park is Speakers Corner, a set apart bit of the park specifically designated, by parliament, for free speech. Since its designation in 1872 due to a forceful takeover of the park by a men's suffrage group, the corner has been used by many free speakers in an attempt to rally change amongst the masses. In the early 1900's suffragettes used the corner as their place of protest. Since its designation many orators, such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and George Orwell have used the corner to speak their thoughts. This sight has such specific value because it continues to hold captive peoples attention and birth reform where it is most needed. Also an interesting place to visit in the park is the Rose Garden, a beautiful, as the name would suggest, rose garden. The garden has a wide variety of flowers and plant life, and it is absolutely stunning to look at.

Westminster Abbey is another place I had the privilege to explore when in London. With its sprawling architecture and truly astounding number of graves, Westminster Abbey is set apart as one of the most beautiful and most disturbing buildings in London. Impressively, the Abbey is the final resting place to over 3000 native britons, but despite this, the Abbey has been the location of many coronations in the country's long history. "Since William the Conqueror in 1066, every British Sovereign has been crowned in the Abbey except for Edward V and Edward VIII, who were never crowned." (Britannica) For literally just under a millenium, british kings and queens have begun their official reign here. Also cool to note, royal weddings have been held in the abbey, the most recent of which was the marriage of William and Kate, the Prince and Princess of Wales in 2011. On an entirely different note, the Abbey is the final resting place of over 3,000 native britons, including William Shakespeare, C. S. Lewis, and Jane Austen. This fact seems super cool until you realise that the majority of the graves are part of the floor, requiring you to walk over them to get around the massive Abbey. Apart from the staggering number of graves in the Abbey, it is also home to beautiful stained-glass windows, most of which picture apostles, saints, or the Savior Himself. Westminster Abbey and its beautifully detailed architecture has been integral to the culture, society, and rulers of the United Kingdom for almost a thousand years, and it continues to have such significance in culture as well as religion. Christian worship has been held here for as long as the building has stood, and even today as people are touring the Abbey, occasionally a priest will come on the intercom and ask people to be still and silent while they pray. It is a holy place of solemn worship, even today.

The final culturally significant location I visited was Big Ben and the House of Parliament. Just from an outside look, which is all the looks we got to have, the gothic-style spires and towers of the House of Parliament are one of the more eye-catching buildings in London, as it has been since its construction in the 11th century for Edward the Confessor. It was then expanded by William the Conqueror shortly thereafter. The building had been previously used as a palace until a fire in 1834, after which the palace was rebuilt in its current gothic style. Inside, the House of Lords and the House of Commons meet and make decisions for the country, which is why when we visited these buildings, there were small yet loud groups of protestors standing outside of it. Accompanying the House of Parliament is the famous, iconic, beautiful, Elizabeth's tower. Now you might be thinking, "wait, isn't it called 'Big Ben?'" No, dear reader, you silly goose, you. Big Ben refers to the bell inside of the tower, which is well known for its accuracy and loud toll on the hour, as most bells are. Elizabeth's Tower, and subsequently Big Ben, have been iconic structures seen in British centric pop-culture for ages, such as Peter Pan, V for Vendetta, and Enola Holmes. Overall, these two iconic buildings have been amongst the most recognizable buildings in all of history, but not only that, they have been the center of political circuits for generations.

Overall, London was a beautiful whirlwind of history and awe, combined with the pure wonder of being able to walk or take public transit wherever you wanted to go. All these factors combined makes this city one of my top favorites of the trip.

[theroyalfanzine]

British Line of Succession

C. King Charles III

The Prince William, The Prince of Wales

Prince George of Wales

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Prince Louis of Wales

The Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex

Prince Archie of Sussex

Princess Lilibet of Sussex

The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York

Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Eddo Mapple Mozzi

Miss Sienna Elizabeth Mapple Mozzi

Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank

Master August Philip Hawke Brooksbank

Master Ernest George Ronnie Brooksbank

The Prince Edward, The Duke of Edinburgh

James, The Earl of Wessex

The Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor

The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal

Mr. Peter Mark Andrew Philips

Miss Savannah Anne Kathleen Philips

Miss Isla Elizabeth Philips

Mrs. Zara Anne Elizabeth Philips Tindall

Miss Mia Grace Tindall

Miss Lena Elizabeth Tindall

Master Lucas Philip Tindall

[heartofstanding]

So I've going through the Calendar of Patent Letters for Henry IV's reign and have made a few "discoveries".

I was looking mainly at the second volume which covers 1402-1405 - in other words, the Shrewsbury years. Most entries relating to Hal post-Shrewsbury that were more or less the same as those I already posted about so I won't rehash them: the direction for others to govern the marches of Wales because the prince cannot attend to it, an order for Hal to punish all rebels etc. Once again, the silence on Hal's face hole is quite striking and there's little direct evidence about Hal and his face hole.

But this was interesting:

[transcript: 1403 Sept 1. Westminster. Licence for the king's son Thomas de Lancastre, steward of England, the king's lieutenant in Ireland, to appoint a sufficient deputy to do everything pertaining to the office of lieutenant in Ireland in his absence, according to the tenour of certain indentures between him and the king. By K. & C.]

So 1 September 1403, Henry sends Thomas permission to appoint a deputy to cover for him during his absence. I previously wondered if Thomas's return to England in November 1403 was related, at least in part, to Hal's wound but also doubted this was the case since it came four months after Hal's wounding. But this indicates that, less than two months after the battle, there was a move to recall Thomas. It's possible that this was no more than a coincidence but it's still very interesting. Preparations for his return to Ireland didn't really get underway until October next year though he didn't return to Ireland until 1408.

(Another thing: Thomas is almost uniformly referred to as “Thomas de Lancastre [titles]” whereas Hal is “Henry, Prince of Wales [etc.]” and John and Humphrey are just John and Humphrey and their titles, if they have them.)

This is also interesting in the context of this entry, 9 days later:

[transcript: [1403. Sept 10. Worcester. Grant, during pleasure, to the king's son John of the office of the constableship of England with the fees, wages, liberties, franchises, profits, amoluments and commodities belonging to it [Foedera.] By K.]

The office of Constable of England had been held by the Earl of Northumberland and he had been stripped of it in the wake of the Percy rebellion so it’s unlikely this appointment was directly impacted by Hal’s wound. Instead, it’s more likely John was appointed because he, at 14, was considered old enough to begin to take on new responsibilities and with Henry’s two eldest sons were already (nominally, if not in practice) in charge of Wales and Ireland, John was the obvious choice.  It is tempting, though, to read it as Henry granting John new responsibilities and duties in case he was needed to step up in the event of Hal's death.

It seems Hal had begun to be more active by November 1403, as witnessed by these two entries:

[transcript: [1403] Nov. 8. Cirencester. Pardon, at the supplication of the king's son Henry, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, and for a fine of 8,000 marks to be paid by them at Chester within three years after Christmas next, to all the king's lieges of the county of Chester, except the mayor and commonality of the city of Chester, for all treasons, insurrections, rebellions, and felonies committed by them with Henry Percy 'le filz,', now deceased, and other rebels ; and pardon to them of all forfeitures of their lands and goods, except offices, fees and annuities held for life and goods acquired since the beginning of the rebellion ; and grant that the heirs and executors of such persons deceased shall likewise have all their lands and goods which have not been granted to others by the king. By K.]

So by early November, Hal was recovered enough to petition his father. It's not clear whether Hal was physically present at this moment or whether Henry responded to a letter and/or representatives from his son. It might be that like the earlier orders for Hal to pursue rebels (discussed in the other post), that this petition and pardon was done in Hal's name to maintain the fiction that all was well with the Prince of Wales. But in November, Hal may well have recuperated enough that he could respond to requests for his intervention and petition his father, particularly if he was doing so via a representative or letter.

Plus it may have been a distraction for him, giving him something to do other than healing and dealing with any pain (as I said in the other post, we don’t know when Bradmore operated or when he first came to see Hal.)

But he also did this:

[transcript: 1403. Nov. 12. Westminster. Inspeximus and confirmation to the stannary men of the country of Devon, at the request of the king's son Henry, prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, of letters patent dated 12 November, 17 Edward III, being an exemplification of a charter dated at Stanhope, 6 August, 1 Edward III [Charter Roll, 1, Edward III, No. 26], inspecting and confirming a charter dated at York, 14 August, 4 Edward II [Charter Roll, 4, Edward II, No. 551], inspecting and confirming a charter dated at Westminster, 10 April 33 Edward I. [Charter Roll, 33 Edward I, No. 40.] By K.]

So Hal is asking for the examination of letters patent and various charter rolls. And we do find out what Hal was looking for. In 1404 we have more entries, citing letters patent (they're not the same letters patent as cited but I'm not sure if that's the error of their 1905 transcriber/translator, the clerk who recorded the above entry in 1403 or whether Hal (/his attorney) had the wrong reference.

It seems Hal started this as a way to get more money/lands from his estates:

[transcript: July 15. Westminster. Revocation of divers letters patent of Richard II granting to his knight Lewis de Clifford the manor of Meere for life; as at the suit of the king's firstborn son, Henry, prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, claiming that the manor was annexed to the duchy of Cornwall by pretext of a charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff of Wilts to summon the said Lewis to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked, and the sheriff returned that he summoned him by John Davy and Walter Forde but he did not appear and judgement was given against him.]

[transcript: Dec. 21. Westminster. Revocation of letters patent of Richard II granting for life to John Chancy the fee-farm of the town of Grauntpount, co. Cornwall, extended at 12l. 11s. 4d. yearly; as on the petition of the king's firstborn son Henry, Prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, alleging that the said fee-farm pertained to the manor of Tybeste, co. Cornwall, annexed to the duchy of Cornwall by a charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff of Cornwall to summon the said John to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked and the fee-farm delivered to the prince, and the sheriff returned that he summoned him by John Bartha and John Godman, but he did not appear and judgement was given against him.]

[transcript: Dec. 21. Westminster. Revocation of letters patent (see Vol. I, p. 68) granting for life to Philip de Courtenay and Anne his wife the manor of Dertemore with all profits of the forest of Dertemore and the herbage of the forest and the borough and manor of Bradenassh; as on the petition of the king's firstborn son Henry, Prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, alleging that the premises pertained the duchy of Cornwall by pretext of charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff [of Devon] to summon the said Philip and Anne to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked and the premises delivered to the prince, and the sheriff returned that he summoned them by John Wele, John Basset, John Rok and John Crewele, and they appeared by William by William Halle, their attorney and the prince by John Mapilton, his attorney, and judgement was given against them.]

Damn. Boy really said, “I’ve survived being shot in the face and painful surgery to get the arrowhead out, I know what will make me feel better: money.”

It’s kind of weird to imagine this being his main priority after his injury but I suppose the business of running a medieval household and paying for it doesn’t stop and this, at least, would probably be easier to deal with while convalescing than chasing down rebels or whatever.

I don’t think this has been discussed before (Anne Curry’s study of his finances in Henry V: New Interpretations stops at 1400) and I don’t have the skill set to check things out so I don’t know if he was (technically) correct in pursuing this or if the judgements rightly favoured him or not. I am suspicious, though, since it was found in his favour and in the first two cases, they didn’t appear to fight (which might suggest they knew the case had a foregone conclusion or they had been prevented from showing up so they couldn’t fight). Certainly, these were all people with lesser resources than him so whether he was technically in the right, he... was a dick in pursuing them anyway. On the other hand, the financial situation in Wales was dire and he was most likely fully aware of this so maybe this was pursued for more understandable reasons. Having said that, I doubt this would have garnered him a sizeable amount of cash - comparatively, half a drop in the ocean. It is interesting to wonder if this is a forerunner to him going after Joan of Navarre's money though that might be a more complex issue than generally suspected (Elena Woodacre talked about this in her biography of Joan and points out that there seems to have been a rise of suspicion and xenophobia linked to Joan’s Breton household; I suspect there were probably multiple reasons rather that one, nice simple explanation.)

On a different note, Philip and Anne de Courtenay were Richard Courtenay's parents! It’s not clear when Richard Courtenay and Hal first met and when they became friends but they do seem to have known each other by the end of 1403 (Richard Ullerston wrote De officio militari for Hal in either 1402 or by advent 1403; it’s been suggested that they both met in the court of Richard II however so their association might have been longer still). So he was possibly fleecing his BFF’s parents (which would have impacted Courtenay since he would have presumably inherited his parents’ properties afterwards). Or maybe Courtenay was supportive of Hal's attempt to fleece his parents (I have complicated thoughts about Courtenay's relationship with his father for which there is no real evidence for).

One final entry that gives me Feels is from November 1404:

[transcript: Nov. 23. Westminster. Commission to Richard Arunddell, 'chivaler,' and Richard Redeman 'chivaler,' to take muster of all men at arms, armed men and archers going in the company of the king's sons Henry, prince of Wales, and Thomas on the king's service to Wales for the rescue of the lord [of] Cotyf (Coety Castle in Glamorgan), besieged by the rebels, and to certify thereon to the king.]

So I'm pretty sure I knew about this in the recesses of my mind somewhere but also putting it in the context of Thomas's horrible, no good, very bad time in Ireland and a year on from Hal's face-hole makes my monkey brain desire a story about this campaign and how they're trying to deal with their trauma (I should probably post the letter Thomas sent to their father back in 1402 because it's the epitome of "dad come pick me up, I'm scared") and also having to get back to "normal life" (military campaigns) for them both.

I also would be very interested in a study of the Welsh wars because mainly it's treated as background for Henry IV and Henry V's lives and reigns but not really given in detail or it's focused entirely on Owain Glyn Dwr and doesn't really talk about the English responses in detail (which, you know, is good! It’s just not particularly useful for me to flesh out Hal’s time in Wales).

There is, surprisingly, a bit about Mary de Bohun with some very exciting (!!!) finds. Most of what’s there is just orders for her anniversary to be celebrated but one of them actually gives the date of her anniversary.

[transcript: [1401. March 10. Westminster. Inspeximus and confirmation to William, the abbot, and the monks of St. Mary Graces by the Tower of London of letters patent dated 13 March 1 Henry IV ; and grant to them of the possesions there mentioned in frank almoin from the day of forfeiture of John de Holand, earl of Huntyngton, notwithstanding that they are worth more than 200 marks yearly and that no mention is made to other grants to them, and grant that if they are expelled from the same they shall have 110 marks yearly at the Exchequer. In return the abbot and convent have  granted certain chantries, anniversaries and obits, as appears by their writing dated at their chapter house, Christmas 2 Henry IV as follows:- They will celebrate the anniversary of Dame Mary, late countess of Derby and consort of the king, and her name shall be written in their martyrology and every year preceding the anniversary, viz. on 1 July, her name shall be read in the chapter and her soul absolved by the abbot or president with psalms and collects for the dead and ringing of bells as is customary in the order for founders and abbots and the office of the dead, viz. placebo and dirige with music and all other solemnity, shall be sung in the choir by the abbot and convent with chaplains and four singers in the more noble vestments of the monastery, and on the day of the anniversary a mass of the Virgin with music and other solemn requiem mass shall be celebrated by the abbot, prior or president at the high altar with candles lit and the altar prepared as at Christmas. They will also celebrate the anniversary of John, late duke of Lancaster, father of the king, on 3 February every year as above, and requiem mass with a special collect, vis.:- omnipotens Domine pro tua peitate miserere anime famule tue etc. shall be celebrated daily by a monk at the altar of St. Katharine in the church of the abbey for the soul of the said Mary, and in every mass said by any monk there shall be memory with certain collects for the good estate of the king while he is alive and for his soul after death the special collect Inclina Domine aurem tuam ut animam famuli tui regis Henrici etc. shall be said, and on the day of his death his anniversary shall be celebrated as above.]

So. This is exciting because there’s some confusion about when Mary did die - the best indicator has been that she was buried on 6 July 1394. The ODNB says that her anniversary was celebrated on 4 July in 1406 but it has been considered that this is unlikely because there wouldn’t be enough time between her death and her burial. Some historians give her death as 4 June, probably because they believe July was written down in mistaken from June (which may or may not be supported by the fact that Walsingham lists her death as occurring between Constanza of Castile (24 March 1394) and Anne of Bohemia (7 June 1394). But the Letters Patent gives it as 1 July. Of course without a second source to back it up (and may have been written down incorrectly or transcribed incorrectly), it’s just an alternative to the 4 June/July date. I’ve never really liked 4 June or 4 July date so I’m happy going forward with the 1 July date.

As an added bonus, while we don’t know whether Mary giving birth or afterwards from complications in childbirth, this might well be Philippa’s birthday.

[immortalmuses]

This is how I know that HRH Henry George Edward James Fox-Mountchristen-Windsor has the hots for Jeff Goldblum, and you cannot convince me otherwise

[queens-an-tings]

Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia.

Portrait by the Workshop of Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt, c. 1623.

Elizabeth was known as ‘the Winter Queen’, and her husband Frederick V as 'the Winter King’, due to their brief reign as monarchs of Bohemia. They were officially crowned in 1619, but were driven into exile after just one winter [Note: Henry VII, father of Henry VIII, was also known as 'the Winter King’. See documentary here.]

Her biographical details and regal connections are far too complicated to go into here - I suggest a read on Wikipedia and then further afield if you are sufficiently interested. Essentially, she was the second child and eldest daughter of James VI and I, King of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and his wife, Anne of Denmark, and became second-in-line to the throne when her elder brother, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, died at the age of 18 of typhoid fever. However, he was eventually succeeded by his younger brother, Charles, as Charles I, as mentioned in previous post here.

Elizabeth’s grandson by her daughter Sophia of Hanover succeeded to the British throne as George I, initiating the House of Hanover, when Queen Anne failed to produce any offspring despite 17 pregnancies.

ADD MORE INFO/EDIT.

[pwlanier]

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, with Sir John Harington in the Hunting Field, 1603.

Robert Peake the Elder (English, c. 1551–1619). Oil on canvas.

Courtesy Alain Truong

[une-sanz-pluis]

Closely linked to Richard's fortunes are those of Edward, Prince of Wales, the son and heir of Henry VI and Queen Margaret who was killed in the Battle of Tewkesbury in 4 May 1471. This eighteen-year-old was the subject of an exclusive posthumous cult. The chronicle of Tewkesbury Abbey tells of the Prince's death in battle and of his burial 'in the mydste of the covent quiere in the monastery ther'; the short paragraph describing his death ends with the words 'for whom god worketh', a reference to miracles performed at the tomb. Further evidence of interest in the Prince includes an annual commemoration, bequests at his tomb, and pilgrimage to it. Queen Elizabeth of York offered, in March 1502, 'to Prince Edward 55.', though it was not indicated where exactly she offered them. The saintly Henry VI was of course being promoted in those years; indeed, on that year she offered three times at Henry VI's shrine in Windsor. There is no reason to assume that Henry VII opposed Prince Edward's cult; Queen Elizabeth of York offered at the tomb, presumably with her husband's permission, if not encouragement. Edward, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1521) may have been influenced by Queen Elizabeth's attention to Prince Edward, when in 1508 he visited the tomb at Tewkesbury.Buckingham also obtained a license to endow Tewkesbury with land worth £60 a year, and provided it with alms throughout his life. By honouring Prince Edward Buckingham may have hoped to advertise his Lancastrian connections, which made him a potential claimant to the throne. The fact that Buckingham's first name was also Edward may have also attracted him to the cult at Tewkesbury. There are further indications of a cult. The prince's obit (4 May) was added in red ink during the fifteenth century to a psalter commissioned by the de Bohun family c. 1380. During the fifteenth century, however, the manuscript was probably in possession of one of Buckingham's predecessors, John Stafford, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1452), whose arms were added on the first folio, next to those of Henry VI and Queen Margaret. Support and then commemoration of the last Lancastrians seem to have run down the Stafford family: Edward Stafford's offerings at Tewkesbury should be seen as familial as much as political. Despite the apparent dominance of exalted folk amongst the cult's adherents, however, less aristocratic followers existed too: in his will from 1513, one Richard Cokkes from East Harptree (Somerset) asked his wife Alice to offer 4d. to 'Prince Edward at Tewkisbury'.

Danna Piroyansky, Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England (Palgrave, 2008)

[rahabs]

9, 13 for history asks!

9. Favourite historical film?

Oh no... I love too many. I can never decide between "Joseph: King of Dreams" and "The Prince of Egypt" going from sheer rewatch value.

If animated historical films don't count, then I'll confess a soft spot for Cutthroat Island, and I adore The Mummy.

13. [share some random historical trivia!]

In times past, and in old English law, there was a difference between high treason and other sorts of treason.  In 1351 Edward III instituted the Treason Act (act 25 Edw. III, Stat. 5, c. 2), which defined and outlined the different sorts of treason under English law, distinguishing between petit or petty treason and high reason.  Petty was an offence committed against a subject of the king.  In the Treason Act, the example given was “when a servant slayeth his master, or a wife her husband, or when a man secular or religious slayeth his prelate.”  High treason was “an offence against the king’s majesty” or (later) “the safety of the commonwealth.”  The Treason Act defined high treason as, to modernize in language:

“[…] compassing or imagining the king's death, or that of his wife or eldest son, violating the wife of the king or of the heir apparent, or the king's eldest daughter being unmarried, levying war in the king's dominions, adhering to the king's enemies in his dominions, or aiding them in or out of the realm, or killing the chancellor or the judges in the execution of their offices.”

By the time of the Tudors and the reign of Henry VIII, there had been recent supplements to the treason laws—in the two centuries following the original implementation of the Treason Act, it had been supplemented thirty-nine times, thirty-two of which were by the Tudor monarchs alone.

Some sources:

Treason Act (Act 25 Edw. III, Stat. 5, c. 2) in Great Britain. The Statutes (The Statutes, Volume 1; Volume 1236). Eyre & Spottiswood, 1870, at page 186. See also the full act at Treason Act (Act 25 Edw. III, Stat. 5, c. 2): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2

Turvey, Roger. The Treason and Trial of Sir John Perrot. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2005.

[ifreakingloveroyals]

19 May 2018 | Queen Elizabeth II arrives at the wedding of Prince Harry to Ms Meghan Markle at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle in Windsor, England. Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales marries Ms. Meghan Markle in a service at St George's Chapel inside the grounds of Windsor Castle. Among the guests were 2200 members of the public, the royal family and Ms. Markle's Mother Doria Ragland. (c) Chris Jackson/Getty Images