#henry beaufort 3rd duke of somerset

[richmond-rex]

I would like to know3rd Duke of Somerset

Love Story，

You've talked about him before with a lowly woman

Hi! We don't know much about Henry Beaufort's romance/love affair. We only know that his mistress was called Joan Hill and that their affair began sometime before he went into exile in 1461. He probably took her with him to the Continent because their son, Charles Somerset, grew up in Burgundy and was probably born there too, considering the name 'Charles' was unusual among the English nobility but would make perfect sense if Charles of Burgundy (then count of Charolais, the Burgundian heir) was his godfather. Charles of Burgundy and Henry Beaufort became friends in 1460 and it was only through Charolais' intervention that the Duke of Somerset was released from imprisonment in France at a time when Louis XI favoured the Yorkists.

We actually only know that the mother of his child was called Joan Hill because Henry VII granted her an annuity in 1493. As the son of the 3rd Duke of Somerset (albeit an illegitimate one), Charles Somerset was Henry VII's cousin and he joined the king in exile, fighting with him at the Battle of Bosworth. He served as Henry's captain of the King's Yeomen of the Guard, as his ambassador and later as his Lord Chamberlain, a position of ultimate trust, and was made Lord Herbert after his wedding with William Herbert and Mary Woodville's daughter, Elizabeth Herbert. Both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York personally attended their respective cousins' wedding. Somerset was later made a knight of the Garter and was eventually elevated to Earl of Worcester.

[une-sanz-pluis]

Is it certain that there is a conflict between Anjou's Margaret and Henry Beaufort? Did he reconcile with Edward IV because he disliked Margaret?

Short answer: no. There's very little evidence of any kind of personal dislike or conflict between them. I suspect that whoever made that kind of claim is someone who believes they "know" what Margaret of Anjou was "really like" and sees her as not only personally responsible for any and all failures on the Lancastrian side but so repulsive a personality that anyone who met her must have really hated her. Which isn't really supported by the evidence and instead speaks more to uncritical acceptance of the view of Margaret found in Yorkist and Tudor narratives and exaggerated by modern day Ricardian and Yorkist writers.

As for Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and his relationship with Margaret, we know very little about the realities of their relationship.

We know they were allies, united in support of the Lancastrian cause headed by Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster. We know that there were rumours that Margaret would "unite with the Duke of Somerset" after convincing Henry VI to abdicate in favour of his son and giving him poison - something that our sole source for this rumour, Prospero di Camulio, Milanese Ambassador to France, reported with scepticism, saying "these are rumours in which I do not repose much confidence".

The claim Margaret was going to "unite with" Somerset might be read as evidence there were rumours that she was having an affair with Somerset. This isn't the space to go into the rumours of Margaret's adultery but we should keep in mind that such accusations were highly politically motivated, intended to attack the reputations of both Margaret and Henry, and we have some evidence that the Earl of Warwick - hardly an unbiased source - was the one spreading the rumours.* In other words: we should be very sceptical of the claim she committed adultery. None of the recorded accusations name the man (or men) that Margaret was purported to have taken as her lover, unless we read the rumour Margaret was going to kill Henry VI and "unite with" Somerset as proof of their affair which... I think could be taken as evidence of an alliance or an affair, rather than absolute truth. We know Camuilo - our sole source for this story and the one about Henry claiming the Holy Spirit had fathered Edward of Lancaster - had his doubts about the veracity of that rumour. There is no evidence that Henry ever abdicated in favour of his son or he was given poison by his wife or Somerset.

Regardless, Somerset has often been speculated to have been Margaret's lover or the father of Edward of Lancaster. So were they lovers or were they bitter enemies? While we don't know, there's a very real chance the answer was "neither". There's no way of knowing if the speculation of later commentators and modern day historians and commentators is true or not and even the idea of Margaret having an affair should be treated sceptically (as I said above).

Now, why did Somerset reconcile with Edward IV instead of continuing to support Lancaster?

We don't know. We don't have evidence that survives to tell us his side of the story. All we have is speculation about his motives.

We know that just before his defection to the Yorkists, he was arrested by Louis XI and was imprisoned for two months (this was not Margaret's fault; he had been on embassy to Charles VII when Charles died and his safe conducts expired, which Louis took advantage of) and then he spent much of the following winter and spring in Bruges. Nathen Amin suggests that this time apart from the main Lancastrian party and living in the "extravagant" Burgundian court caused Somerset to develop doubts about the chances of their cause succeeding:

Somerset was unmarried and still only thirty-five years old, and it is not unfathomable he was concerned about facing decades in exile, flitting around the coast of England without men, money or motivation to truly threaten an increasingly secure Yorkist throne. Disillusionment was understandable, even in a solider as partisan as Somerset.

The idea of Somerset as disillusioned is echoed by B. M. Cron who also sees this as partly Margaret's fault:

He was the leader of the Lancastrians after Margaret herself and yet she appeared to have no use for him. She had not invited him to accompany to France but left him to his own devices in Edinburgh, which for Somerset was not only dull but uncomfortable, after the opulence of the Burgundian court. He did not enjoy being in exile. Somerset was thirty-five and unmarried, and his title and estates and estates had escheated to the crown following his attainder in 1461. His loyalty to King Henry was strong ... but the passive king had proved a disappointment to one of Somerset's ardent temperament.

I don't buy Cron's speculation - we don't necessarily know that Margaret "had no use" for Somerset and it may well have a pragmatic choice to leave Somerset behind so that if anything happened to Margaret, there would still be someone to lead the Lancastrian resistance: both Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI remained in Scotland. It's possible that Somerset's position there was take care of both if Henry's mental health collapsed again or if Margaret was captured or drowned while on embassy.

Susan Higginbotham also points out that Somerset's younger brother, Edmund, was Edward IV's prisoner and he might have been concerned about his brother's circumstances the longer in remained in opposition to Edward IV.

There are reports, recorded in the Paston Letters, that Somerset was seeking reconcilement with Edward and Warwick in September 1462. If he was considering defection then, he still joined the Lancastrians for their attack on Northumberland a month later.

The intended attack had been imagined as "an overwhelming invasion" that would lead to forces flocking to Henry VI's banner. Instead, it was a fizzer. There are a lot of factors involved. The domestic politics of Scotland and France meant their promised support fell well-short of what was needed, the swift, aggressive approach Edward IV took the news of the French-Lancastrian alliance meant that neither Louis XI nor the Duke of Brittany were willing to support the Lancastrians further. The grand invasion became the seizure of a "handful of fortresses" in hope that supporters would rally to them. No such support materialised. Reports of a large Yorkist army convinced Henry and Margaret to leave - obstinately to pick up reinforcements, possibly they feared capture, which would be disastrous to their cause. At any rate, Somerset was left with Jasper Tudor and Sir Ralph Percy to defend of the recaptured castle of Bamburgh with 300 men against the Earl of Warwick who had possibly as high as 20,000 men with him. Lauren Johnson describes them as "not only outgunned but also out-provisioned and outnumbered", and notes that the garrisons were eating their horses to survive by Christmas. Bamburgh surrendered on Christmas Eve.

Somerset might have been able to flee into exile - Jasper Tudor and Lord Roos refused reconciliation with Edward and were permitted to return to Scotland with safe conducts. It's possible that Somerset had that option open to him and made the choice to stay but it's also possible that Edward felt Somerset was too great of a prize to let go or wasn't willing to let him, Tudor and Roos go. At any rate, Somerset had spent a gruelling few months struggling to hold Bamburgh. The looked-for support from France and Scotland failed to eventuate, Henry VI's loyal supporters failed to appear, the king and queen had deserted the field, and he had held out against siege for as long as he could. We can speculate that the siege conditions produced low morale that could have led to desertion or mutiny amongst the 300 men making up the forces at Somerset's disposal. His surrender may have been a practicality or a matter of sheer pragmatism.

We don't know how Margaret (or Henry for that matter) reacted to the news of Somerset's defection to York. We can imagine that Margaret's response was one of grief and fury, seeing it as a profound betrayal. We can just as easily imagine that Margaret found it galling but understood Somerset's position or that she took a pragmatic approach to the news. It is interesting that Johnson describes the Lancastrian reaction to Somerset's defection back to their side in the following terms:

Despite his failure to rouse the town, when Somerset reached Bamburgh he was welcomed back into the Lancastrian fold with open arms. Henry, as always, found it easy to forgive, but the fact that the comrades whom Somerset had abandoned apparently accepted his change of heart suggests it was motivated by genuine feeling.

We also don't know why Somerset defected back to Lancaster. It was unlikely to be because he believed the Lancastrians were about to regain power or that he thought he stood to gain greatly if they were restored. An incident at Northampton, where the townspeople attempted to lynch Somerset before he was rescued by Edward IV and then sent to Chirk Castle in Wales, is frequently supposed to have played a role. Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood suggest Somerset was "deeply shaken" by the incident and it may well have exposed the fact that whatever favours he had accrued by his defection, he would never really be accepted. Cron suggests the incident showed him that his position was "ambivalent" while Johnson suggests he was "offended" by the "violent rejection". Higginbotham suggests that his stay in Chirk left him isolated and cut off from the royal favour** he had been receiving. Perhaps the stay in Chirk was the first time he felt himself free to really assess his position. For Amin, his defection is a sign of Somerset's greatness of personality:

The duke had, for all intents and purposes, chosen the life of an impoverished, nomadic rebel over that of a valued royal favourite. Perhaps Henry Beaufort, a soldier to his very core, simply yearned to be at the heart of a military movement rather than enjoying the pampered life of a wealthy magnate.

Cron, meanwhile, describes Somerset as an "impulse" that he "gradually came to regret" as he had become the "lap dog" to a man he "felt no loyalty towards". She also suggests that Edward IV's other favourites like Hastings resented Edward's intimacy with Somerset. Amin suggests that John Neville, Lord Montagu was likely to have resented Somerset's restoration given their acrimonious history.

A common theme in these historians' assessments of Somerset's loyalty to Henry VI, who was likely Somerset's godfather. Cron says his loyalties laid with Henry, Amin says "one can only assume he had struggled to truly abandon his innate fidelity" to Henry. Michael Hicks describes Somerset's motivations as such:

What motive then remains? Surely the only possibility is loyalty to the Lancastrian monarch, faith in the legitimacy of the Lancastrian title to the Crown, which was sufficient to outweigh such other considerations as life, liberty, honour, and family. [...] If Somerset broke faith to Edward, he did so not in the expectation of personal reward, but in support of a dynastic principle that he shared with other committed Lancastrians.

This loyalty could have extended to Margaret, either as an extension of his loyalty to Henry or as genuine feeling.

(You can read an ask here by @blackboar and @richmond-rex that discusses Somerset's defection back to Lancaster, which I only looked up after I wrote all this.)

* The Burgundian chronicler, Georges Chastellain, wrote that Warwick spread the rumour that Edward of Lancaster was the result of Margaret's affair with a "wandering player" while Pious II recorded that Warwick complained that Margaret "and those who defile the king's chamber" held the true power.

** Somerset's attainder was reversed and his brother released from prison. Most pointedly, he was shown special favour by Edward IV: they went hunting together, a tournament was thrown in Somerset's honour and they even shared a bed. I am personally a little sceptical of such claims: they bare striking similarities to the accounts of the royal and personal favour shown to Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham by Henry V before his role in the Southampton Plot was revealed. It may be that by exaggerating the excessive favour shown towards Somerset, chroniclers were merely using a trope to show the heinous nature of his betrayal.

Sources

Nathen Amin, The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line That Captured The Crown (Amberley 2017)

B. M. Cron, Margaret of Anjou and the Men Around Her (History and Heritage Published 2021)

M. A. Hicks, "Edward IV, the Duke of Somerset and Lancastrian Loyalism in the North", Northern History, 20:1 (1984)

Susan Higginbotham, "Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset: Died May 15, 1464" (blog post, 2010)

Lauren Johnson, Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI (Head of Zeus 2019)

Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, The King's Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge University Press 1992)

J. L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens (Oxford University Press 2004)

[blueberry-bubbles130]

Alright folks!

I am back again to ask you some more stupid historical hypotheticals, because I’m having a lot of fun doing these.

This time the hypothetical is…..

There will be multiple parts to this hypothetical, so you can submit figures you’d like to see for the next poll.

Extra clarifications (Please read):

The zombies are slow walking and there will be hostile survivors like in Dead Rising. But the government aren't coming in to do anything about the zombies.

You can be anywhere in the world you want. Not just a mall or city. You can be in florida in the zombie apocalypse.

If you have medication you must take or disability aids like glasses, you automatically get them and don’t have to worry about it.

No nuclear bombs, radiation sickness or diseases like Captain Trips from Stephen King’s the stand (Not dealing with any of those)

[richmond-rex]

Sometimes I think we don’t put into perspective that the Wars of the Roses were a lot more personal to the ones closer to power/the throne (like the Beauforts) than to noblemen like the Stanleys. In some ways, we could even say that the conflict between Richard of York and Edmund of Somerset, Henry Beaufort's father, was the very sparkle that started it all. The 3rd Duke seemed to take it on a personal basis, which is understandable considering Henry saw his father be killed in front of him by Warwick’s forces at the first openly armed conflict of the period. Henry himself was injured at St Albans (he had to be carried outside on top of a cart) and then saw his father’s memory be publicly disgraced by York’s faction who received his father’s late office appointments like the Captaincy of Calais. Worse, at the ripe age of nineteen Henry Beaufort was made a ward of the very man who had killed his father, the Earl of Warwick. 

That Henry Beaufort took it all personally and saw it much more than politics is also clear by the way he conducted himself whilst Henry VI was still in power. When he was newly created Duke of Somerset, he almost threw hands with the Duke of York at a council meeting. Before said council meeting, he arrived with a heavily armed entourage that got into a skirmish with the city's watchmen at Coventry, a Lancastrian loyalist city. He also had a hostile public altercation with Warwick’s brother (John Neville) in London a few months later, described as marked heavily by ‘dyscencyon and ukyndnesse’. A year later Henry Beaufort banded together with Exeter, Shrewsbury and his own half-brother, Thomas Ros, and this time tried to seize Warwick himself who managed to save himself. 

The circumstances surrounding Somerset’s conciliation with Edward IV and later defection are also heavily imbued with what I believe to be personal choices. At the time of his surrender, Edward IV had one of Beaufort's brothers, Edmund, in his custody in the Tower, whilst Somerset himself and other Lancastrian partisans were held under siege at Bamburgh Castle with their supplies running low (a contemporary chronicle suggested they were left with nothing else to eat but their own horses). By reconciling with Edward IV, Henry Beaufort also managed to obtain a pardon for his mother the Dowager Duchess of Somerset and for his half-brother Lord Ros, who received a safe conduct to go into Scotland rather than to reconcile with the Yorkist government.

Once welcomed by Edward IV, though, it’s possible Henry Beaufort was not very comfortable in the same circle where people who had disgraced his family (such as the Nevilles) were also heavily favoured by the new king. At the same time, it’s also likely that Edward IV’s closest allies didn’t tolerate Henry Beaufort very much. When the citizens of Northampton saw Edward IV standing next to Somerset they attempted to lynch the duke, leading Edward to intervene and with ‘fayre speche and grete defeculte savyde hys lyffe for that tyme’. Did the populace spontaneously erupt at the sight of the duke or were they actually instigated against him sometime prior to his coming? If they were instigated, by whom?

According to Gregory's Chronicle, sometime in 1463, Edward IV organised a tournament at Westminster in Somerset’s honour so that Somerset ‘should experience some kind of chivalric sport after his great labour and heaviness’. Apparently, Somerset refused to take part in the jousts and Edward IV, enraged, commanded him to do it again but this time wearing a straw hat (‘a sory hatte of strawe’) in place of a helmet to shame him and punish him for his disobedience. The rest of the tournament contestants rained sufficient violence on the duke to leave him well bruised (‘every man marked him well’) after the jousts, perhaps out of jealousy or personal animosity. 

Emma Levitt remarked that ‘Edward’s treatment of Somerset demonstrated his power and control over the duke in front of his noble peers’, in opposition to other more rose-coloured views of the time the Beaufort duke stayed with Edward IV. For the Yorkist king, Somerset’s submission, regarded as the principal member of the exiled Lancastrian faction, sent a very clear message to his subjects and the international community. From Henry Beaufort’s perspective, though, his sojourn at Edward IV’s court doesn’t strike me as easy as it’s often made up to be. Michael Jones also pointed out that London chronicles suggest that Henry Beaufort’s flight was provoked by his fear of those who surrounded the King and the incident at Northampton where the duke had been attacked by a mob.

I tend to agree with this view, although imo Michael Jones fails to take into account the Beauforts' personal animosity towards Warwick when talking about the role played by Henry Beaufort’s brothers during Henry VI’s readeption. Jones says that Henry’s younger brother (Edmund, duke of Somerset after his brother’s execution), made no effort to cooperate with Warwick because Warwick’s agreement with Margaret of Anjou undermined the Beauforts’ prominence in the Lancastrian government. By that time Warwick and his brother John had also been personally responsible for the deaths of Edmund’s father and elder brother. Again, it’s not difficult to see how that would have coloured the actions of the Somerset brothers during the Wars of the Roses.

I would like to know3rd Duke of Somerset?

Henry Beaufort was simply a prominent Lancastrian attempting to avenge his father and secure his estates.

His 1462 reconciliation with Edward IV showed that those two objectives conflicted with each other after Lancastrian defeat. He did try to make peace with the Yorkist. Edward IV really try to reconcile with him and for a time it seemed Henry Beaufort was willing to make peace with him.

History knows what's next: he went back to the Lancastrian faction, fought for Henry VI and lost his land and his life in the process. It shows that the people hyperfocused on the personal interest of individuals in order to explain their allegiance have a dead spot because they can't explain Henry Beaufort's behaviour. He had no self-interest in joining a poor rebellion that had 0 chance to win back the country to Lancaster and little chance to even sustain itself in northern England.

And Beaufort still joined them, because, ultimately, Henry VI is his king. His father died for him. Beaufort and Lancaster are kin. It wasn't enough that Edward IV was more than eager to win Somerset back and friendly, or that Henry VI's rule was terrible. Ultimately his old oath and shared blood mattered more than the preservation of his estates.

The third duke of Somerset, who was willing to risk everything for familial memory and ancestral loyalty, isn't an anomaly. He shares this with the De Veres, the Clifford, Ralph Percy and so many others. The Yorkist side has this too with John Neville torn apart by having to choose between his king and his family (and then his estates), or Hastings dying for his friend's son, or Lovell fighting over and over again against Richard III's foes.

[labuenosairesfrancaise]

Badminton House

Hi guys!!

I'm sharing another grand english state! 

House History:  The medieval House was owned by the Boteler family from whom, in 1612, Edward Somerset, fourth Earl of Worcester, purchased the manors of Great and Little Badminton. Some years later, he gave Badminton to one of his sons, Sir Thomas Somerset who was the first to make what would be many significant alterations to the original House.

The Somersets are descended from John of Gaunt, and the dukedom of Beaufort was created by Charles II in 1682, being granted to Sir Thomas’ great nephew, Henry Somerset, 3rd Marquess of Worcester in reward for his service to the Royalists in the Civil War. The first Duke and Duchess carried out extensive works on the House, Gardens and Grounds.

More history: https://www.badmintonestate.com/the-estate/history/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This house fits a 64x64 lot and features several impressive rooms, more than 29 bedrooms, a servants hall and several state rooms!

I only decored the main rooms, for you to have a glimpse of the distribution. The rest is up to you, as I have stated that I do not like interiors :P

We warned, I made modifications to the floorplan to fit the church, so that conection with the main house is quite weird.

You will need the usual CC I use: all of Felixandre, The Jim, SYB, Anachrosims, Regal Sims, TGS, The Golden Sanctuary, Dndr recolors, etc.

Please enjoy, comment if you like it and share pictures with me if you use my creations!

[horizon-verizon]

I always laugh when TG state Aegon III couldn’t possibly have gotten his claim from Rhaenyra because she was never officially recognized as queen. Who did Henry VII (founder of the Tudor dynasty) get his claim from ? Margaret Beaufort, his mother who was never queen. And Henry VII’s claim to the throne was incredibly weak; Margaret Beaufort was only the granddaughter of an illegitimate grandson of Edward III who was explicitly disinherited. 

Who is Margaret Beaufort descended from? She comes from Jon of Gaunt's, the Duke of Lancaster, line, and Jon of Gaunt was the 3rd surviving son of Edward III.

This is a family tree of it so things can make sense for people:

Text to accompany for who can't inspect the image above:

Edward III was of the House Plantagenet, the house where both the houses York & Lancaster came from.

Jon of Gaunt's son--John Beaufort, the 1st Earl of Somerset--himself had a son, who was John Beaufort, the 1st Duke of Somerset. (A lot of "John's"; it was how they sort of made their heirs more legitimate of the power they inherited, by reminding everyone that they were of John of Gaunt's descent. Like how royals do.) Earl John's mother was Jon of Gaunt's mistress Katherine Swynford & they had Earl John before they married, so for a time, Earl John was illegitimate. Some people would say that this makes him eternally illegitimate, but this is a digression.

Margaret Beaufort was Duke John's daughter, but Duke John was born (c.1373) before his parents married (c.1396). Thus Henry VII (her son) did have a wishy-washy claim to the throne through her…yet he still got to become king. Aegon III's claim through Rhaenyra, comparatively, looks a hell of a lot stronger!

And I don't know why they keep ignoring that in the Targ succession list in the back of F&B, it specifically marks Aegon III as "Rhaenyra's son". Not "Viserys' grandchild" nor "Daemon's son". It's "Rhaenyra's son". Compare this to all other Targ kings and who the text ties them to connote where they get the legitimacy of their claim from:

And then people come back asking about how Daeron II has his claim go under Naerys instead of Aegon IV or Aemon, trying to say that this list couldn't possibly show us where these people officially take their claim. I need people to also know that while women/girls do not statistically inherit seats of power like men/boys, but:

what anon says above, which means men have also claimed stuff through a woman related to them somehow when it was convenient AND women have/could receive seats [next point]

in the ASoIaF universe, Rohanne Webber, Agnes Blackwood, Marla Sunderland, Jeyne Arryn, Lyanna Mormount, etc are all women who have before, during, and after Aegon's Conquest have inherited the leadership of their house. Aerea Targaryen, Shiera Blackwood, Aelora Targaryen, and Shireen Baratheon ALL have been named as a man's heir throughout the ASoIaF universe/history! Girls/women are still technically candidates for leadership in Westeros and always have been! But not only that...

the point of a claim is to trace one's blood to an aristocrat FIRST, then gender, with a preference for males but a clear social willingness to use a female relation!

Robert Baratheon allowed & benefited from maesters using his Targaryen grandmother's Targness to add to the legitimacy of his own claim to rule and his war after he won (his grandmother was Rhaelle, daughter of Aegon V & Queen Betha Blackwood [quote below from ACoK, Catelyn II])

[danmoorhouse]

Betrayal in the Wars of the Roses, Volume 1

By Dan Moorhouse

Reviewed July 21, 2023 by Kathy.

Disclaimer! I read many of the chapters in this book while it was still a work in progress.

Betrayal, especially in the history books, is often portrayed in basic terms of black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. Those who betray during times of civil strife, such as the Wars of the Roses, often suffer from this kind of two-dimensional thinking. However, the reality is much more complex and nuanced.

Betrayal in the Wars of the Roses, the first volume of a planned three part series, takes a deeper look at some of the better known betrayals in the Wars of the Roses, examining kinship, patronage, and loyalty, helping to put things into context and showing that good lordship was a two way street, with each side having obligations to the other, and if those obligations were not properly filled…well, then, that’s when things could get sticky.

After an introduction that sets the table, we are provided with chapters on the following “betrayers” – George, Duke of Clarence; Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick; Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset; Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland; Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers; Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby; and Sir Anthony Trollope. Not only are people looked at in this book of betrayals, the role of towns is also studied with a chapter dedicated each to Calais and York.

While a case can be made for each of the above men being guilty of betrayal, in just about every instance there were mitigating circumstances. And in several cases, it was the king (usually Edward IV) who handled situations in what seemed to me a clumsy manner, leaving me thinking, “It’s no wonder he rebelled!” I won’t go into detailing the information presented for each of the men above, but as an example will present the case of George of Clarence. And no, I’m not going to touch the case of umpteen times great-grandfather Thomas Stanley with the proverbial 10 foot pole.

Now George is often described as a petulant, ungrateful younger brother, never satisfied with what he had and always wanting more. Now, maybe that is true, at least in part, but it’s not the whole story. As a young man, George had seen his sister Margaret make a high-status marriage, while his own wishes for an equally prominent marriage were nixed by, who else, his brother the king. He was granted significant wealth but his proposed expenses that included lavish improvements to Tutbury Castle outreached his income. I think today we’d say that George liked living beyond his means. He was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland, an office his father once held, but later had his right to govern as his father had curtailed. There were other issues, but these will do for this example and will show that while some of George’s problems were of his own making, not all of them were, and if these matters had been handled differently by Edward, it is possible that some of the tragedies in George’s life might have been avoided.

In the end, the question of betrayal has to be looked at through the lens of family relationships, which were extremely important in medieval England, who one owed the most loyalty to (kin or king?), and whether the principles of good lordship were observed by all parties. And when it came to loyalty to the Crown, what exactly are we referring to – the institution of kingship, or the individual sitting on the throne?

This book is filled with enough details and quotes from original documents to satisfy the geekiest of history geeks, yet remains readable and entertaining, and it even got me to question some previously held beliefs. So while I may never completely forgive my great-great (etc) grandfather for betraying Richard III, I at least have a better understanding of why he made the choices he did.

https://mybook.to/Betrayal-paperback

https://mybook.to/Betrayal-paperback

[simply-ellas-stuff]

I remember hearing or reading once a criticism about The Tudors TV show [I don't remember who by but I think it was either from someone here on Tumblr or someone on Tiktok, dunno, don't quote me on where from] and their opinion on the whole Buckingham plot because "There was no living Duke of Buckingham during Henry 8's reign" and its always bugged me.

Did you forget about Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham?? Nephew of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV. Son of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (executed by Richard iii) and Katherine Woodville.

Dude was executed for treason in 1521. Henry personally gathered the evidence against him, he was tried before 17 people, and convicted. He was accused of listening to prophecy about the kings death and intending to kill the king.

Like yes, he's majorly fictionalized - technically and a shit load of key facts are missing from The Tudors portrayal but the guy did exist. He was executed by Henry.

In The Tudors, he claims to be a descendant of King Edward III, which means he has a claim to the throne, which is True. Edward III -> Thomas of Woodstock -> Anne of Glouster -> Humphrey Stafford (1st Duke of Buckingham) -> Humphrey Stafford (Earl of Stafford) -> Henry Stafford (2nd Duke of Buckingham) -> *Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham*.

And technically speaking, I do believe that does in fact give him a claim by blood, but Henry's father won the throne by battle then legitimized his claim via marrying Elizabeth of York - she herself a granddaughter of Edward III via his sons Lionel and Edmund :: Edward III -> Lionel of Antwerp (Duke of Clarence) -> Philippa (Countess of Ulster) -> Roger Mortimer (Earl of March) -> Anne de Mortimer [m. Richard of Conisburgh] -> Richard Plantagent (3rd Duke of York) -> Edward IV -> **Elizabeth of York** -> *Henry VIII*

/

Edward III -> Edmund of Langley (1st Duke of York) -> Richard of Conisburgh (Earl of Combridge) -> Richard Plantagent (3rd Duke of York) -> Edward IV -> **Elizabeth of York** -> *Henry VIII*.

And Henry ViI obviously had a claim himself from Edward III as well, but it was considered a 'weaker' claim because it came from his mother and not his father. Edward III -> John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster) -> John Beaufort (1st Earl of Somerset) -> John Beaufort (1st Duke of Somerset) -> Margaret Beaufort -> **Henry VII** -> *Henry VIII*.

They all have claim. Henry VIII's is older actually, because his claim come from the three elder siblings of Buckingham's claimant-ancestor. [Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, and Edmund of Langley were all older the Thomas of Woodstock].

And as far as I can tell, Buckingham was never actively going against Henry VIII, but he was charged for treason. He was executed. That was not made up.

The Tudors has a LOT wrong with its accuracy but you can find better things to complain about. This one, while very fictionalized and dramatized is technically accurate.

[skiplo-wave]

It's like dis....

Rollo, Count of Rouen

William Longsword, Count of Rouen

Richard of Normandy, Count of Rouen

Richard II, Duke of Normandy

Robert, Duke of Normandy

William the Bastard - later William The Conqueror, Duke of Normandy & King of England

King Henry of England, Duke of Normandy

Empress Matilda, Holly Roman Empress & Queen of the Romans

King Henry II of England, Duke of Normandy

King John of England, Lord of Ireland

King Henry III of England

King Edward of England

King Edward II of England

King Edward III of England

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, King of Castile and Duke of Aquitaine

John Beaufort, 1st Marquess of Somerset and Dorset - later only 1st Earl of Somerset

John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, 3rd Earl of Somerset

Lady Margaret Beaufort

King Henry VII

Princess Margaret Tudor, Queen Consort of Scotland

James V of Scotland

Mary, Queen of Scots & Queen Consort of France

James VI and I

Elizabeth Stuart, Electress Consort of Palatinate and Queen Consort of Bohemia

Princess Sophia of the Palatinate, Duchess Consort of Brunswick-Luneburg

King George I of Great Britain, Elector of Hanover

King George II of Great Britain

Frederick, Prince of Wales

King George III of Great Britain

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn

Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom

King Edward VII of the United Kingdom

King George V of the United Kingdom

King George VI of the United Kingdom

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

King Charles III of the United Kingdom

Anon imma be real

I don’t care

[eddy-of-westminster-blog]

Military Leaders and Commanders of the House of Beaufort during the Wars of the Roses

[richmond-rex]

What's your favourite Wars of the Roses antics asdfsdfghkjj wanna guess how many I'll get right

Oh, I'll be considering my favourite diva moments aka the most dramatic antics those funky little men pulled during the wars. Of course, a chunk of them was something Warwick did, whether it's him claiming the Queen of England tried to kill him with a poker, saying he would see the king until two o'clock or he would die, or slaying his horse before (during?) the battle to show to his soldiers he wouldn't flee, Warwick surely deserves the drama king crown. More under the cut!

send me “what’s your favorite..” asks 💫

I love other dramatic things people did because of Warwick such as Margaret of Anjou demanding he knelt before she pardoned him or Henry Beaufort (Somerset) colluding with Exeter and other orphans from St Albans to chase Warwick down the streets and kill him. I have to love Somerset as well, the man was so bent on avenging his father (though, to be fair, seeing your father slain in front of you only to be 'adopted' by his killer would probably do that to you).

Whether it's Somerset almost getting into a fistfight with York during a council session or getting into Conventry with a bunch of armed men to attack the Yorkists only to get into a fight with the mayor and his men instead...... that man had issues. What to say about the time Warwick, Salisbury and the future Edward IV captured Richard and Anthony Woodville and threw a handful of insults at them (and Anthony fought back with insults of his own?? KING).... the awkwardness of it all when they all became family lmao

Also the time Jasper Tudor invoked every cousin up to the 7th degree in Wales to avenge his father's death and kill the Herberts and the future Edward IV, only to be included in Edward's 'unpardonables' list a while later. Then when he managed to actually kill one of those men ten years later (Roger Vaughan) when Vaughan was sent to kill him instead — and he was aided by a priest no less! Which makes sense after I learnt Vaughan was a church desecrator! Goodness. Jasper said he would show him as much mercy as Vaughan showed his father....... iconique.

York entering London in all pomp blazing royal emblems left and right only to be met with silence at parliament when he laid his hand on the throne.... one has to laugh, no one really trusted the man who said he would never hurt 'his most Christian king' only to send an attack not long after. Also, bless Henry VI for his Loveday reconciliation - just the right amount of drama that those petty lords deserved.

What else? Oxford convincing his gaoler to set him free and flee with him to Henry Tudor... 10/10 Lancastrian advertising. Wasn't he the one who convinced Warwick to not turn his back on the Lancastrian cause in 1471 as well? That man had some persuasion skills, I'm sure! Also, I read somewhere that he tried to flee his prison before 1485 and broke a leg in the process.... tough guy (™).

Also the time Jasper Tudor fled a siege by dressing up as a peasant and carrying a pea basket on his back! That man truly was the James Bond of the Wars of the Roses, the sheer amount of times he managed to get in and out of sieges... probably all in that same way. I think he was the one who proposed to his nephew that Henry dressed as a commoner to flee from Brittany to France because that's just his style.

Speaking of Henry Tudor, what to say about the time he faked being ill and fled to a church as he was about to be taken back to England, and then was defended by a bunch of random locals in St Malo? Iconic behaviour. Same energy, I suppose, when Perkin Warbeck tried to invade England by landing in Kent only to have his soldiers massacred by the locals who simply did not want him lmao.

Well, that's all the antics I remember now! Thanks so much for sending this ask hashjh it was fun! 🌹x

send me “what’s your favorite..” asks 💫

[allthingsgeorgian]

A very public and messy divorce – Beaufort v Beaufort

A very public and messy divorce – Beaufort v Beaufort

Today’s post is a little unusual, as I welcome back legal eagle, Mel Barnes who has worked with me in a joint article, to tell the story of a very messy divorce (quite literally), as you’ll discover later. As most of us know from experience, the golden rule when talking to someone about their divorce is that almost always, ‘the other spouse is always to blame’, a principle enshrined in natural…

[blueberry-bubbles130]

We are back for another historical hypothetical folks!

And this time it is:

Think of it as a Midsomer Murders/Clue style thing.

I don’t have an answer for who the victim is. You can choose anyone you want, for the victim.

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to Royal Households and How they Work

When I say Households, I mean the entourage that follows around the royal family. The household went everywhere with them to care for their needs from the people who would empty their chamber pots to their noble companions. Most royal households are basically the same as noble ones, only on grander scale. Every royal had a household and an entourage as well as every noble at court.

Palace Personnel ~ The Commons

The commons were an intregal part of every household. They made up perhaps 80% of the work force. Royal courts were often on the road and never spent more than a few months at every palace. The court was constantly moving. Some positions were not permanent, meaning certain servants did not travel with the court because they were employed at the palace only. They would be paid by the Monarch's paymaster.

Scullion: The scullion was a relatively easy position to fill so they were often changed as the court went from palace to palace. They would be responsible for scrubbing and cleaning the servants quarters and the kitchens. They would scrub floors with lye, scour pots with sand, sweep put the fireplace and clean up after the other servants. They were the first to rise in a castle and tasked to light all the fires in the kitchens. Scullions would just be employed to the palace and serve a multitude of chambers

Laundress: The laundress was responsible for the cleaning of anything made of fabric in the household. Since they are handling unmentionables, they knew what happened behind closed bedchamber doors. They knew when the King visited the Queen or hadn't, they knew when marriages were consummated or not and they knew when the Queen and royal women were not pregnant. They often sold secrets to pad their pockets. Laundresses might be permanent staff but sometimes not.

Minstrels: The minstrel was a commoner hired to play an instrument or sing for the entertainment of the royal. A royal might staff a few at a time but they would always have one on hand. The minstrel would likely come with their masters as they travelled. The minstrel might serve the main royal household but a royal might retain their own.

Cook: The cook was one of the most important servants in the household. They would have the task of overseeing the running of the kitchens and keeping supplies in order. They would likely be on call at all times. Henry VIII's cook was often woken in the night because his royal master wanted a midnight snack. The cook was a valued member of the household and would have been highly sought after if they were a very skilled cook. They would have travelled with the joint. Cooks were apart of the greater royal household but often royals retained private cooks for their own use.

Maidservant: The maidservant cleans the castle. She would sweep the floors, scrub them, empty the chamberpots, get rid of the ashes from the fire and ready the fire for later. She would make up the bed or strip it for the laundresses. She would wash anything that needed washing including furniture and ornaments. She was likely not a travelling servant and would be strictly employed at a single palace.

Jester: The jester was the hired entertainer. Working under the master of revels, the jester had the daunting task of making the monarch and their family laugh. They would tell jokes, tell stories, cause havoc in the court for laughs and lighten the mood. The most successful jester of all time was Will Somers, jester to Henry VIII. Will broke bad news to the infamously bad tempered monarch and got away with things that would have sent others to the block. Will survived most of Henry's reign, his head intact. Jesters would be apart of the main household though each royal might have one of their own.

Positions within the Royal Household ~ Noble

Nobility were always welcomed at court. They eat at court, slept at court and were cared for by the monarch. Some nobles had to sing for their supper and most were hired as royal servants. They weren't exactly scrubbing floors and would be paid handsomely with land that would generate wealth for them

The Steward/Seneschal: This person was the head of the royal's staff. They would have the task of running the lands and servants their master or mistress. The steward served as a backup and assistant in all the tasks even representing their master or mistress when they were unavailable. Would be a high ranking noble. Each royal household would have them.

Treasurer of the Household: The treasurer was the accountant and pay master. They would be in charge of ensuring debts were settled, wages were paid and the household was running within the budget. This was a coveted position because it gave the treasurer insight into the financial situations of the royals. Such info was wroth its weight in gold. Each royal would have one.

Usher: The Gentleman Usher would be in charge of escorting guests into the royal chambers and into the royal presence. They would act as a go between their royal master/mistress and the guest often going back and forth with messages. It was just as coveted as the position of chamberlain but with less responsibilities.

Master of Horse: The Master of Horse was in charge of seeing to the horses of their master. They would oversee the grooms or the stableboy/hands who were employed at the stables to actually care for the horses. The master of horse would ensure that the stables were in order and the horses were up to parr in order to bear royalty across the kingdom. Each royal would have one but there would a main one who acted as overseer.

Master of the Wardrobe/Mistress of the Robes: These are the nobility who are employed to look after the clothes of the royal they serve. This would mainly involve a managerial position, overseeing the inventory of the royal wardrobe (a warehouse like building that housed the clothing) and placing orders for new clothes. It was a tidy job that rarely involved getting the hands dirty. Each royal would have one.

Chamberlain/Valet: The chamberlain is employed to look after the Lord's bedchamber. This was the most sought out position as they effectively were the gateway into the royal presence. Their main task was making sure their boss was comfortable and happy. Could be a well born commoner or a noble. Each royal would have one.

The Page: All royal households had pages. They would be a young noble boy about seven years old sent to their royal master. He would be in charge of tidying up after the lord, carrying messages to other servants and occupants of the castle and serving him at meals. Unlike others on the list, the page would not be paid. His experience was his payment as he would learn the running of a court and how to be courtier. Each royal would have one.

Squires: Squires were like pages though they only served the men. They would accompany their royal master to battle, look after his armour and mail, ensure that his lord's horse was saddled, caring for their master's weapons. The squire would always be a young nobleman on the cusp of becoming a knight.

Governess: The governess is a noblewoman woman employed to oversee the Monarch's children's household. She would be the first teacher a royal child would have and would oversee the nursemaids who would have care of the physical person of the child. She would be appointed when the child was four or five. Notable governesses include Katherine Swynford (wife of John of Gaunt and mother to the Beaufort line), Margaret Pole (wife of Tudor Loyal Sir Richard Pole, sister of the last York heir Edward of Warwick, daughter of George Duke of Clarence and niece to King Edward VI and Richard III), Kat Ashley, Margaret Bryan, Madame de Maintenon and Baroness Lehzen. Most unmarried Princesses retained their governesses while Princes generally outgrew their governesses after they were breeched.

Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber: They were the male companions of a King or Prince, sort of like ladies in waiting but manly. They would accompany the King or Prince everywhere they would go and shared duties with Groom of the Stool (royal toilet paper dispenser) and the Chief Gentleman of the Chamber (overseeing the staff and maintaining the chamber). They would help their master get ready, serve him at the table and organize hunting and games to keep him entertained. Gentlemen and companions where often chosen for their connections as well as their master's own opinion. Henry VIII's gentlemen included: Sir William Compton (ward of Henry VII and heir to rich lands), Sir Henry Norris (the grandson of William Norris who fought with Henry's father at Stroke and a relation to the Yorkists Lovells), Sir Anthony Denny (son of Sir Edmund Denny Baron of the Exchequer) Sir Michael Stanhope (brother in law to Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset), Charles Brandon (ward of Henry VII and son of Tudor Loyalists)

Ladies in Waiting and Maids in Waiting or Maids of Honour: These are the female attendants to the Queen or Princess. Ladies in Waiting were married while the Maids were unmarried. They would have to attend their mistress wherever she went, help her get ready, keep her chambers in order, write letters for the Queen and maintaining her honour. They were chosen for their connections. Using Katherine of Aragon as an example, her Ladies in Waiting included: Maria de Salinas (daughter of Juan Sancriz de Salinas secretary to Isabella, Princess of Portugal and a Spanish courtier in the service to Katherine's parents, wife of Baron Willoughby de Ersby), Elizabeth Howard (the daughter of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, sister to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk and wife to Thomas Boleyn, ambassador to France), Anne Hastings (daughter of William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, wife to George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury and Lord Steward.), Agnes Tilney (wife to Thomas Howard, Earl of and 2nd Duke of Norfolk.), Elizabeth Scrope (wife of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, a loyal Tudor lord), Margaret Scrope (wife of Sir Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk cousin to the King), Anne Stafford (sister of the Duke of Buckingham, married Sir George Hastings, Earl of Huntington and daughter of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (cousin to the King) and Lady Katherine Woodville (sister of King Henry VIII's grandmother and his great aunt by her marriage), Elizabeth Stafford (sister to Anne Stafford wife Robert Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter and Earl of Sussex around). Their connections are what got them their places and you can see why they were chosen.

Accommodation

Accommodation can be a difficult thing to sort both as a writer and a steward. You might have a palace of 200+ bedchambers in which you must house a staff of 500-/+, a varying amount of nobles, the royal family (of a varying amount) and their own households. When assigning rooms it is best to think of a Russian nesting doll. Start from the inside and work your way to the outside.

The best rooms go to the monarch, their consort and their children/siblings/parent(s). These chambers would include the bedroom, a drawing room/ common area, a privy, a closet (a small chamber that can be used for prayer or work). They would be furnished with the best cloth, the best candles and whatever furniture brought by the resident since most royal courts travelled from palace to palace. They will also have chambers for their personal servants such as ladies in waiting and grooms.

The second best set of rooms would go to the highest ranking nobles/people in the court. These rooms would be less fancy and a little smaller. These would be given to from titled nobility descending from those of Ducal rank (Dukes/Duchesses) or even members of the council such as Thomas Cromwell in Tudor times.

The next set would be considerably smaller, perhaps minus a closet or a drawing room. Given to lower nobility.

The next level of chambers would be smaller perhaps only the bedroom and a common area given to minor nobles.

The last set of rooms would be small and only hold enough room for a bedroom. Servants would have to sleep on the ground on pallets beside their masters.

Any other guests at court would have to stay at off-site locations around the palace in the city. Some nobles at houses around major palaces just in case they arrived late or were kicked out of court.

[kathswynford]

Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster was probably born in 1350, in Hainault. John of Gaunt's epitaph says the Duchess came from 'a knightly family': she was born Katherine de Roët, as she was the daughter of Paon de Roët (also spelled Payne), a herald and knight who was introduced to the English court by Queen Philippa, a fellow Hainaulter and Edward III's wife. Therefore, Katherine Swynford was raised at the English court from the age of two or so. It is uncertain who the mother is. She had three siblings: two sisters, Isabel (or Elizabeth) and Philippa, and a brother, Walter. Philippa married Geoffrey Chaucer, considered the greatest poet of the middle ages.

Katherine was married to Sir Hugh Swynford, but the year is unknown. It is speculated that it might have been 1366-7. Together they had three children: Blanche Swynford, Sir Thomas Swynford and Margaret Swynford, who became a nun. It is not possible to say whether the marriage was a happy or unhappy one, because Katherine Swynford was very young when they were wed and Sir Hugh was a soldier who served in campaigns for a long time. Katherine was governess to John of Gaunt's daughters Philippa of Lancaster and Elizabeth of Lancaster. He also stood as Godfather to her daughter Blanche. Sir Hugh Swynford died on the 13th of November 1371 when Katherine Swynford must've been only 21. Around that time, her and John of Gaunt begun their love affair. They claimed that they were not involved before the death of Katherine Swynford's husband. On the 13th of January 1396, the couple was finally married, Katherine Swynford becoming Duchess of Lancaster. This was two years after the death of John's second wife, Constance of Castile. They were married at Lincoln Cathedral and together they had four children: John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset (1373–1410), Henry, Cardinal Beaufort (1375–1447), Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter (1377–1426) and Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (1379–1440). John of Gaunt died on the 3rd of February 1399 at Leicester Castle and the Dowager Duchess of Lancaster lived in Lincoln. Her son Henry was Bishop of Lincoln.

Her children by John of Gaunt were legitimised twice by the Parliament of King Richard II (1390, 1397) and by Pope Boniface IX in September 1396 but they were barred from succession to the throne by their half-brother, Henry IV. However, Henry VII was a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford through his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, and so are all the English monarchs ever since.

Katherine Swynford died on 10 May 1403.

[scotianostra]

On July 3rd 1449 King James II married Mary of Guelders and took formal control of his Kingdom three months short of his 19th birthday.

Mary of Guelders was born circa 1434 at Grave in the Netherlands, she was the daughter of Arnold, Duke of Guelders, and Catherine of Cleves. Catherine was a great-aunt of Henry VIII's fourth wife Anne of Cleves.

When she was twelve years old, Mary was sent to Brussels to live at the court of her great uncle Phillip, Duke of Burgundy and his wife Isabella of Portugal, where she served as lady-in-waiting to the Duchess of Burgundy's daughter-in-law, Catherine of Valois, the daughter of Charles VII King of France and future queen of England.

In April 1449 Mary was betrothed to James and arrived on Scottish shores on 18th June, marrying on July 3rd. The marriage produced 5 children including the future James III.

In 1460, James involved himself in the English dynastic struggle, the Wars of the Roses, placing his weight behind the Lancastrians, his mother Joan Beaufort's family,  and hoping for some personal gain, he attempted to recover Roxburgh, one of the last Scottish Castles held by the English since the Wars of Independence.

On 3rd August, 1460, while in the course of attacking the town, a cannon exploded killing the King of Scots outright. Lindsay of Pitscottie wrote in his history of James' reign 

"as the King stood near a piece of artillery, his thigh bone was dug in two with a piece of misframed gun that brake in shooting, by which he was stricken to the ground and died hastily."

James III was crowned on 10 August and Mary was given official custody of the King and acted as regent. 

Mary was caught up in the Wars of the Roses in England and followed her husband’s policy of playing off the Yorkists and Lancastrians to Scotland’s advantage. A marriage between Edward, Prince of Wales and her eldest daughter Mary was considered but with the Yorkist victory of the Battle of Towton that seemed a long way off. Margaret of Anjou, Edward and the Dukes of Exeter and Somerset fled to Scotland and Mary allowed them to stay for a year before writing to Edward IV to consider a truce. 

Eventually, Margaret of Anjou and her party left Scotland after Mary paid them a substantial sum. It’s possible Mary even considered marrying Edward IV herself. However, she was once again a reluctant participant in Margaret of Anjou’s cause in 1463. The military campaign at Norham Castle was a complete failure, and Margaret of Anjou departed for Burgundy.

Later that same year Mary fell seriously, and she died a few months later on 1st December 1463. Her final resting place is under debate, but she’s probably buried in Holyrood Abbey. Her reputation was somewhat blackened in the years following her death, and she was accused of having had affairs with the Duke of Somerset and one Adam Hepburn, but those accusations are most likely untrue. 

Her son was still only 14 years when she died, and he continued to be under a regency until 1469. 

There's a more in-depth study of her life here https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2012/10/13/mary-of-guelders-queen-of-scots/

The pic is a "Tableau Vivant with the Marriage of James II of Scotland to Mary of Gelre-Egmond in 1449 by  Pieter  but dates to about 200 years later.