Oscar Homolka is VERLOC
Art Neuendorffer
http://www.the-quill.com/ShakespearesHouses/NashsPlace.htm
<<John Leland, on his visit to Stratford-upon-Avon around 1540, included
in his description of the town a 'praty howse of brike and tymbar', built by
Hugh Clopton, who would become Lord Mayor of London [1491], opposite
the Guild Chapel, referred to in his will as his 'Great House', and later as
'New Place'. The Cloptons sold New Place in 1567. Thirty years later,
in 1597, it was acquired by William Shakespeare.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hedingham Castle Essex
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk/Hedingham-Castle.html
<<After the death of the 18th earl's widow, [the castle reverted by
family arrangement to the widow of the 17th earl - Elizabeth Trentham.
It was then sold for the first time in 550 years in 1713
to Sir William ASHURST, MP & Lord Mayor of London (1693).>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
<<Kathman is correct that the ASHBOURNE
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne.htm
is of Lord Mayor Hammersley [Lord Mayor 1627], not Oxford.
I put both in a picture editor and the Folger
is right that a Hammersley portrait was altered
to make it look like someone else.
I don't know why Kathman or the Folger don't go online
and find Hugh Hammersley's other portrait posted by
the Hammersley family on their genealogy page.
[ http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm ]
Despite the fact that his hair has been painted out
and his eyebrows reduced, both paintings are clearly
of Hugh Hammersley--the features are identical.
It would be fascinating to know why someone
had a painter alter the Hammersley.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<And so down to the heart of [Stratford] the nexus of buildings
dominated by the GREY-stone tower of the Gild-Chapel built
by Hugh Clopton [Lord Mayor 1491]. When Leland was here,
'about the body of this chapel was
curiously painted the Dance of Death.'
The interior was sadly ravaged by the Reformation - paintings
white-washed. We have with much effort recovered something
of the painted DOOM upon the chancel-arch.>>
_William Shakespeare, a biography_ by A.L. Rowse. p. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
_Sleuthing an enigmatic Latin annotation_ By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
<<Camden's brief description of Stratford-on-Avon appears
on pages 452 & 453 of the 1590 edition and reads as follows:
"Plenior hinc Avona defertur primùm per Charlcott nobilis & equestris
familiae Luciorum habitationem, quae à Charlcottis iam olim ad illos
haereditario quasi transmigravit: & per Stratford emporiolú non elegans
[sic. This word was misprinted; it should have been "inelegans"], guod
duobus fuis alumnis omnem dignitatem debet loanni de Stratford
Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi qui templu posuit, & Hugoni Clopton Pretori
Londinési, qui A vonae pontem faxeum quatuordecem fornicibus subnixum non
fine maximis impensis induxit."
The English translation is:
"From here the River Avon flows down more strongly first through famous
Charlcott and the house of the knightly family of Lucies which long ago
passed to them from the Charlcotts as it were by heredity, and through
the not (un)distinguished little market town of Stratford, which owes all
of its reputation to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop
of Canterbury who built the church, & Hugh Clopton, the magistrate
of London who began the stone bridge over the Avon
supported by fourteen arches, not without very great expense.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ClassicNote on Richard III Act Three, Scene Five
<<The Lord Mayor of London arrives at the Tower. Catesby delivers Hastings'
head, at which point both Buckingham and Richard must try to mollify the
Lord Mayor. They tell him that Hastings was plotting against them both,
and that he confessed as much in the Tower. They ask the Lord Mayor
to inform the people of what happened, since he is better placed
to placate the masses then they are.
Richard then sends Buckingham to follow the Lord Mayor.
He wants Buckingham to tell the people
that the children of Edward are illegitimate, which
would require that the eldest illegitimate child should take the throne.
Richard then wants Buckingham to convince the people that he is also an
illegitimate child of Edward, and thus he should receive the throne.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE BY E. COBHAM BREWER
<< The chief magistrate of London is The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, one
of the Privy Council. At the Conquest the sovereign appointed the chief
magistrates of cities. That of London was called the Port-Reeve, but
Henry II. changed the word to the Norman maire (our mayor). John made the
office annual; and Edward III. (in 1354) conferred the title of "The Right
Hon. the Lord Mayor of London." The first Lord Mayor's Show was 1458, when
Sir John Norman went by water in state, to be sworn in at Westminster; and
the cap and sword were given by Richard II. to Sir William Walworth, (Lord
Mayor 1374/1380) for killing Wat Tyler.>>
"to rise in undress maisonry upstanded (joygrantit!), a waalworth
of a skyerscape of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from
next to nothing and celescalating the himals and all, hierarchitec-
titiptitoploftical, with a burning bush abob off its baubletop and
with larrons o'toolers clittering up and tombles a'buckets clotter
ing down." - FW p.4
http://www.britannia.com/hiddenlondon/marshalsea.html
<<The Peasants' Revolt was the first popular rebellion in England. Lead
by Wat Tyler, it started after a poll tax of one shilling (around a week's
wages for a skilled labourer) was levied in order to help fund numerous
wars. An army of 60,000 peasants marched on London but when Tyler met
with Richard II at Smithfield to propose economic reforms, he was stabbed by
the Lord Mayor of London, William Walworth. Some of Tyler's supporters
tried to save him by carrying him into St. Bartholomew's Hospital but
the King's knights dragged him out again and beheaded him.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.caderbooks.com/exnshake1.html
<<Civic leaders and religious authorities considered the theater
extremely disreputable and even dangerous. In 1594, the Lord Mayor of
London [Sir Richard MARTIN] pleaded with Queen Elizabeth's Privy
Council to tear down all the theaters, for they were
"places of meeting for all vagrant persons and masterless men that
hang about the City, thieves, horse-stealers, whoremongers, cozeners
[cheaters], cony-catching persons [con men], practicers of treason,
and other such like." (Gurr, 134)
Because London's city fathers were so vehemently opposed to the business,
theatrical impresarios had to locate their playhouses beyond the reach of
the aldermen. So they set up shop in seedy nearby suburbs ("liberties"),
side by side with ale-houses, bordellos, and bear-baiting arenas.
Joining city leaders in the crusade against playhouses were Puritans and
other conservative moralists. Their problem with the theaters went beyond
public behavior to the larger problem of the moral influence. Plays had
been defined for centuries-for a millennium-as a form of instruction; they
please, but they also teach. By depicting virtue rewarded & vice punished,
plays provide not only moral precepts but also patterns for better behavior.
The Puritan critic Phillip Stubbes turns this argument on its head, and
shakes it violently, in his antitheatrical tract The Anatomie of Abuses
(1583):
"You say there are good Examples to be learned in [plays]. Truly, so
there are: if you will learn falsehood; if you will learn cozenage; if you
will learn to deceive; if you will learn to play the hypocrite, to cog, lie,
and falsify; if you will learn to jest, laugh, and leer, to grin, to nod,
and mow; if you will learn to play the vice, to swear, tear, and blaspheme
both Heaven and Earth; if you will learn to become a bawd, unclean, and
to devirginate maids, to deflower honest wives; if you will learn to murder,
flay, kill, pick, steal, rob, and row; if you will learn to rebel against
princes, to commit treasons, to consume treasures, to practice idleness,
to sing and talk of bawdy love and venery; if you will learn to deride,
scoff, mock, & flout, to flatter & smooth; if you will learn to play the
whoremaster, the glutton, drunkard, or incestuous person; if you will learn
to become proud, haughty, & arrogant; and, finally, if you will learn to
contemn God and all his laws, to care neither for heaven nor hell, and
to commit all kind of sin and mischief, you need to go to no other school,
for all these good examples may you see painted before your eyes
in interludes and plays." >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/help/
<<The office of the Lord Mayor of London was created by King John in
1215, in gratitude to the city for its support. The city was allowed to
choose
its own Mayor, making this one of the first elected posts in the world, but
the
King required that each new Mayor travel upriver to swear loyalty to the
Crown in person.
The Lord Mayor's Show is a celebration that gradually grew around the
Mayor's journey. By Elizabethan times it was a well-established public
festival: so much so that it appears in Shakespeare.>>
http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/hist/lit.shtml
<<The Lord Mayor's Show has inspired an extraordinary range of artists
over its eight centuries. One might expect it to crop up in Pepys' diaries,
but the Lord Mayor of London also shows up in three of Shakespeare's
plays, and the Show itself in one.
Can there be another event which appears in a Shakespeare play and a James
Bond book? The show makes a brief appearance in Dr No, and was featured
more prominently in Hitchcock's 'Sabotage', though Hitchcock elected to
recreate it in a field in Northolt rather than filming the real thing.
There have been countless paintings and drawings of the Show - more than
we can possibly display here - but two stand out. Both were created in 1747,
one by Canaletto and one by Hogarth. These were two of the finest painters
of their day, and represent the apotheosis of eighteenth century English
and Italian painting. The fact that they both chose to represent
the Lord Mayor's Show indicates not only its status as an event,
but its vibrancy as an artistic subject.
Canaletto's painting is one of five he painted of the Show, and depicts the
eighteen-oared State Barge , as well as the twelve-oared barges of a number
of Livery companies. Three sailing ships fly the Union Jack, and plumes of
smoke can be seen trailing across the water indicating that salutes have
just been fired.
The canopy of the Lord Mayor's State Barge is covered with blue cloth,
which is significant. Two different types of cloth were used for the awnings
of ceremonial barges: blue cloth which was called "Plunkett", indicating a
civic event; and "Murrey", a red cloth used on Royal occasions.
The painting is an idealisation of London and The Show, taking an
imaginary viewpoint high above the Thames. It presents a vista so broad it
could not be taken in at one glance, but which was created by
the superimposition of two separate views.
Canaletto's brilliant blue sky owes much to his native Venice, and against
it is arranged the architecture of London: Lambeth Palace; Westminster
Abbey; Westminster Hall, the original destination of the Show; and the
four spires of St John's Smith Square, Queen Anne's footstool. But the
dominating architectural feature is the new Westminster Bridge,
which was not opened until two years after the painting
was completed. It is shown with the statues of the river gods,
Thames and Isis, over the centre span,
but although planned these were never executed.
By contrast, Hogarth objected to what he called "phizmongering", the
artificial prettification of people and places. London was his universe,
and he showed its high life and low life with a keen and critical eye.
His 'Industry and Idleness' series is a highly moral work, illustrating the
rewards which await those who choose to spend their time wisely, or to
enjoy the easy virtue of London's dissolute underbelly. Two apprentices
start their training together but follow entirely different paths. The Idle
Apprentice is eventually hanged at Tyburn, whilst the Industrious
Apprentice marries his master's daughter and becomes Lord Mayor
of London, the highest position to which he could aspire.
The final engraving in the series sees the Industrious Apprentice in his
coach on Lord Mayor's Day, mobbed by an admiring crowd, and watched
from a balcony by Frederick, Prince of Wales and Princess Augusta.
He rides in a hired coach which was introduced following the incident
in 1711 when the Lord Mayor fell from his horse and broke his leg;
today's magnificent coach was not built until 1757.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/mmathis/criterion/indepth-203.html
<<Alfred Hitchcock committed a shocking murder in Sabotage (1936).
Here, in one of the director's darkest works, a child unknowingly carrying
a bomb is blown to pieces in the streets of London. The death of Stevie is
a deliberate attempt to shock an audience not accustomed to elaborately
orchestrated deaths of sympathetic characters -- especially children.
The crime defeats expectation so decisively that it is virtually an act
of cinematic terrorism.
Means: a saboteur scenario based on The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad
(not to be confused with Hitchcock's Secret Agent, adapted earlier the
same year from a different text, or Saboteur, a 1942 American
production). Motive: the death is part of a larger meditation on evil,
one in which every major character is killed, morally compromised,
or both. Opportunity: with the popular successes of The Man
Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Thirty-Nine Steps (1935),
Hitchcock could do as he pleased.
The saboteur's first strike is a London power failure (Chapter 1).
It's eloquent, economical filmmaking: the flickering bulb, the quivering
power meter, sand in the generator and on the hands of the guilty Verloc
(Oscar Homolka). The boy, Stevie (Desmond Tester), is introduced as
a butterfingered menace in the kitchen of the living quarters behind
Verloc's cinema. His lovable clumsiness later proves fatal. Stevie and
his sister, Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sydney), are unaware of the saboteur's
double life. Undercover detective Spenser (John Loder) has suspicions.
Verloc receives marching orders for more serious mayhem at the Aquarium
of the London Zoo. He visits the bird shop of bomb-happy Professor
Chatman (William Dewhurst), who later delivers Verloc's bomb concealed
in a birdcage. Hitchcock had been using bird imagery since Blackmail
(1929) but never before had birds been such explicit harbingers of
death. Evil lurks behind the cinema screen itself.
Circumstances force Verloc to send Stevie to Victoria Station with the
bomb amid a major public event, the Lord Mayor's Show Day. The boy has
strict orders to make it by 1:30, 15 minutes before the deadly moment,
but he's detained by an aggressive salesman and at the Lord Mayor's
parade. Precious minutes tick away while these bits of comedy and
spectacle transpire. Frequent closeups brutally build audience
identification with the doomed child. As Stevie boards a public bus the
final seconds stretch excruciatingly. The fatal moment of 1:45 arrives.
No explosion. Will Stevie live? At 1:46 -- the horror.
We share the stunned disbelief of Spenser and Mrs. Verloc. She cannot
even enjoy the innocent pleasures of a Disney cartoon without black
irony pressing in on her. In the movie's secondary tour de force she
sits down to supper with Verloc and half-accidentally stabs him as the
birds twitter. Spenser saves her from the consequences of her crime
and the proof perishes with the Professor in one final blast.
Francois Truffaut summed up the humane response when he told Hitchcock,
"Making a child die in a picture is a rather ticklish matter; it comes
close to an abuse of cinematic power."
Hitchcock -- always eager to appease a powerful critic -- agreed.>>
-- MARK FLEISCHMANN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Secret Agent (1936)
<<John Gielgud, Peter Lorre, Madeleine Carroll.
A gripping adventure, darkly comic, with Lorre as The Hairless
Mexican, so called because he is neither Hairless or Mexican! "Many
sequences which show Hitchcock at his very best: the fake funeral,
the murder on the mountainside, the riverside cafe,
and the climax in a chocolate factory.">>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CONRAD: The Secret Agent, Chapter 11
`I made myself ill thinking of how to break it to you. I sat for hours
in the little parlour of the CHESHIRE CHEESE thinking over the best
way. You understand I never meant any harm to come to that boy.'
Mr VERloc, the secret agent, was speaking the TRUTH.
<<She saw there an object. That object was the GALLOWS.
Mrs Verloc was afraid of the GALLOWS.
She was terrified of them ideally. Having never set eyes on that
last argument of men's justice except in illustrative woodcuts to a
certain type of tales, she first saw them erect against a black and
stormy background, festooned with chains and human bones, circled
about by birds that peck at dead men's eyes. This was frightful
enough, but Mrs Verloc, though not a well-informed woman, had a
sufficient knowledge of the institutions of her country to know
that GALLOWS are no longer erected romantically on the banks of
dismal rivers or on wind-swept headlands, but in the yards of
jails. There within four high walls, as if into a pit, at dawn of
day, the murderer was brought out to be executed, with a horrible
quietness and, as the reports in the newspapers always said, "in
the presence of the authorities." With her eyes staring on the
floor, her nostrils quivering with anguish and shame, she imagined
herself all alone amongst a lot of strange gentlemen in silk hats
who were calmly proceeding about the business of hanging her
by the neck. That - never! Never! And how was it done? The
impossibility of imagining the details of such quiet execution
added something maddening to her abstract terror. The newspapers
never gave any details except one, but that one with some
affectation was always there at the end of a meagre report. Mrs
Verloc remembered its nature. It came with a cruel burning pain
into her head, as if the words "The drop given was fourteen feet"
had been scratched on her brain with a hot needle.
"The drop given was fourteen feet."
"Yes," said Mrs Verloc, sitting there against him in the hansom
all rigid with the dread of the GALLOWS and the fear of death.
"Yes, Tom." And she added to herself, like an awful refrain:
"The drop given was fourteen feet."
Ossipon, not looking at her, and with a face like a fresh plaster
cast of himself after a wasting illness, said: "By-the-by,
I ought to have the money for the tickets now."
But Comrade Ossipon knew that behind that white mask of despair there
was struggling against terror and despair a vigour of vitality, a love
of life that could resist the furious anguish which drives to murder
and the fear, the blind, mad fear of the GALLOWS. He knew. But the
stewardess and the chief steward knew nothing, except that when they
came back for her in less than five minutes the lady in black was no
longer in the hooded seat. She was nowhere. She was gone. It was then
five o'clock in the morning, and it was no accident either. An hour
afterwards one of the steamer's hands found a wedding ring left lying
on the seat. It had stuck to the wood in a bit of wet, and its glitter
caught the man's eye. There was a date, 24th June 1879, engraved inside.
"AN IMPENETRABLE MYSTERY IS DESTINED TO HANG FOR EVER. . . . ">>
"I am seriously ill," he muttered to himself with scientific
insight. Already his robust form, with an Embassy's secret-service
money (inherited from Mr Verloc) in his pockets, was marching in
the gutter as if in training for the task of an inevitable future.
Already he bowed his broad shoulders, his head of ambrosial locks,
as if ready to receive the leather yoke of the sandwich board. As
on that night, more than a week ago, Comrade Ossipon walked without
looking where he put his feet, feeling no fatigue, feeling nothing,
seeing nothing, hearing not a sound. "AN IMPENETRABLE MYSTERY. . .
." He walked disregarded. . . . "THIS ACT OF MADNESS OR DESPAIR."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0852173.html
<<Whittington, Richard, 1358-1423, English merchant and lord mayor of
London. He made his fortune as a mercer and then entered London politics
to become successively councilman, alderman, sheriff, and finally (1397)
lord mayor, an office to which he was elected three times. Like most of the
London merchants, Whittington supported the usurpation of the throne by
Henry IV in 1399, and in 1400 he was made a merchant of the London and
Calais staples. He made several loans to Henry IV and Henry V in return
for lucrative trading concessions. Whittington had no children and left his
fortune in a trust administered by the Mercers' Company, largely for
building purposes in the City of London. The famous story of Dick
Whittington and his cat is far removed from the actual life of the lord
mayor, who was born the son of a Gloucestershire knight. According to
the story, Dick was an orphaned kitchen boy
who put his one possession, a cat, on his master's ship
in the hope that it might be traded. He then ran away but turned back
when he heard the prophetic ringing of Bow Bells ("Turn again,
Whittington, lord mayor of London") and found that his cat had been
purchased, for a large fortune, by the ruler of Morocco, whose kingdom
was plagued with rats and mice. Dick was thus able to marry his master's
daughter and become a successful merchant. The story was first
recorded in a play, now lost, that was licensed in 1605.>>
1397 Richard WHITTINGTON
1406 Richard WHITTINGTON second term
1419 Richard WHITTINGTON third term
----------------------------------------------------------
St Mary le Bow Cheapside, EC2
http://www.offtolondon.com/hiddenlondoncopy/stmlebow.html
<<The Church of St Mary le Bow was one of the first re-buildings erected
by Sir Christopher Wren after the Great Fire of London in 1666. Its massive
steeple, a square tower surmounted by four stories which reaches 235 feet
into the sky, is a well-known landmark in the City, topped as it is
by a weather vane in the shape of a sinuous golden dragon.
Wren's solid-looking structure was raised on the site of what was already a
very ancient church. As far back as the reign of William the Conqueror, the
church of St Mary was known as 'St Marie de Arcubus or Le Bow' because
of its arches of stone. And so the name has come down to us to this day.
Perhaps one of the most famous features of St Mary le Bow is its bells.
These are the bells that a poor runaway boy is said to have heard
as he was resting on Highgate milestone when they called:
'Turn again, Whittington, Lord Mayor of London.'
And popular folklore still maintains that only Londoners born within
the sound of Bow Bells have the right to call themselves Cockneys.
An interesting historical feature of St Mary's is the balcony in front of
the tower. This is a memorial to an incident in 1331 when a wooden
balcony containing the Queen and her ladies fell during a tournament
celebrating the birth of the Black Prince.
The balcony continued to be used as a vantage point,
despite this mishap, and the Henrys and Edwards came to watch all
the great city pageants from here. After Wren rebuilt the church, Queen
Anne saw the Lord Mayor's pageant from the balcony in 1702. It was
the final display to be devised by the last official City poet.
Another and more famous poet to be associated with the church of
St. Mary le Bow is John Milton,
who was born in nearby Bread Street. A crumbling plaque
on the exterior wall of the church commemorates this fact. As was common
in those days, Milton frequently published his works from church yards
in Fleet Street. The best-known of these, 'Paradise Lost'
was published from St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street .
This was the district where boot makers worked in goatskin leather. The
leather was known as Cordovan and the workers as cordwainers. A statue
of Captain John Smith (1580 - 1631) a cordwainer who rose to become
Governor of Virginia and Admiral of New England, was therefore
appropriately placed here outside the church>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/smith_anker_james_northcote_sirwill
iamwalworth.htm
SIR WILLIAM WALWORTH LORD MAYOR OF LONDON,
KILLING WAT TYLER IN SMITHFIELD, 1381
Engraver: SMITH, ANKER (London, 1759 - 1819)
Designer: NORTHCOTE, JAMES (Plymouth, 1746 - London, 1831)
Date: 1796
Medium: ORIGINAL ENGRAVING
Publisher: JOHN BOYDELL, LONDON
<<James Northcote: A major English painter, illustrator, designer and
author, James Northcote left Plymouth for London in 1771. He studied art
there at the Royal Academy and then became a principle assistant to Sir
Joshua Reynolds. During his successful career Northcote was highly
received
for his portraits, historical paintings and depictions of animals. In
this latter category his One Hundred Fables (1828) stands as a classic
of wood engraved illustration. John Northcote was elected an Associate
of the Royal Academy in 1786 and a full Academician in 1787.
Anker Smith: Anker Smith received his education at the Merchant Taylor's
School of London. After being apprenticed to several engravers he worked
for the London publisher, James Heath. First engraving for illustrated
books, Smith was commissioned by many publishers and designers,
including Bartolozzi. His first large, individually published plates were
engravings after the designs of Renaissance masters,
such as Leonardo, Titian and Correggio.
In 1791 Anker Smith began a leading engraver for Boydell's Shakespeare
Gallery. Of particular interest is that his engraving for Sir William
Walworth, Lord Mayor of London, Killing Wat Tyler obtained his
election into the Royal Academy in 1797.
John Boydell: John Boydell is easily one of England's most remarkable
18th century personalities. Born in poverty, he began his career as an at
best mediocre engraver of small book plates. At this time England was
at a very low ebb as a serious centre for the visual arts
(particularly engraving) and Boydell sought to eradicate this situation
by beginning a second career as a publisher of fine prints.
Modest initial experiments in the 1760's led to a rapid expansion
of his business and during the 1770's he published his striking series
of mezzotint engravings, Liber Veritas, engraved by Richard Earlom
after the drawings of Claude Lorrain. This ambitious undertaking put
England back on the printmaking map and was a huge financial success for
John Boydell.
Boydell had now established London as a major centre for the arts and this
once poor and struggling engraver/publisher was acknowledged for his efforts
by being elected no less than Lord Mayor of London, in 1791. The same year
marked the beginning of Boydell's most grandiose undertaking. His new
publishing establishment in Pall Mall. 'The Shakespeare Gallery', began by
commissioning the most esteemed painters and engravers in the country to
create and design large and expensive engravings based upon the plays and
life of William Shakespeare. By this time as well John Boydell's brother,
Joshua, had joined the firm.
This monumental venture continued until Boydell's death thirteen years
later. By that time, The Shakespeare Gallery had created and published
one hundred & seventy engravings on a grand scale. Alas, the expenses for
this vast project had been so large that England's foremost publisher of art
ended his life the way he began, dying penniless.
In its grandiose size and style, Sir William Walworth, Lord Mayor of
London, Killing Wat Tyler, is closely related to Boydell's Shakespeare
prints. It clearly contains both the drama and design elements found in many
of his Shakespearean works. Not surprisingly, both James Northcote &
Anker Smith were commissioned by Boydell at this time to work on a number
of Shakespearean designs. This then was a fascinating attempt to turn an
episode of early English folklore into a scene worthy of Shakespeare's
greatest history plays. It was also a delightful self indulgence by
Alderman Boydell. After all, he, like the protagonist in this
wonderful engraving, was Lord Mayor of London.
One should also note that many of Boydell's Shakespeare engravings were
reprinted in later editions during the nineteenth century. Sir William
Walworth, Lord Mayor of London, Killing Wat Tyler, was an individually
published engraving which was not reprinted in any later editions. It is
thus much more scarce than any other large Boydell engravings. >>
----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Eyre - Mayor of London
http://www.brandon-heritage.co.uk/eyre.html
<<Simon Eyre, son of draper John Eyre, was born in Brandon in about 1395.
The story goes that having served seven years as an apprentice he found out
that his master was not in fact a Draper but an Upholder (upholsterer) and
so "after considerable expense and difficulty" (Milford, p58) he started all
over again with another master and served another seven years, finally
becoming a journeyman draper. It seems an unlikely story, but just what took
him to an apprenticeship in London in the first place is unclear. It seems
obvious that he was following in his father's footsteps and according to R P
Mander in the East Anglian Magazine article "A Suffolk Dick Whittington"
"There were several people from Brandon about the time he commenced his
commercial career who occupied important positions in the city and an
introduction from one of them would have secured the required opening with a
city merchant."
In 1418 he married Kathleen Millington, daughter of John Millington, a
brewer and was admitted a freeman of the Draper's company a year later at
the age of 24.
His initial commercial success is largely credited to his wife for it seems
she heard news of a cargo of linens and cambrics that were being sold off
cheaply from a damaged ship in the Port of London. Realising they could be
resold at a significant profit Simon, dressed to impress, managed to bluff
the vendor into letting him have the goods without payment, the bill to be
sent on later. The sale was a great success but the Eyre's were far from
wealthy, or at least as wealthy as Simon thought he needed to be to accept
the office of sheriff when he was proposed in 1434. He argued that his
modest means would not yet sustain such a high honour.
R. P. Mander writes; "One of the aldermen standing nearby said that this
could not be true for Eyre habitually boasted that he broke his fast every
day on a table which he said he would not sell for a thousand pounds. The
Mayor and the two aldermen were so intrigued that they invited themselves to
dinner at Eyre's house. When the reluctant sheriff-elect arrived at his
dwelling with his three guests he asked his wife to prepare the little table
and set refreshment before the visitors. At first his wife demurred but
seeing that her husband was adamant she seated herself on a low stool and
spread a damask napkin over her lap with a venison pasty thereon. Simon
turned to the astonished visitors and said: 'Behold the table for which I
would not take a thousand pounds.'"
Eyre did become Sheriff, however, and in 1444 was made an alderman. A year
later he was elected mayor. Some say that he was also knighted at this time
but, although Eyre probably became Sir Simon at some point, no reference has
yet been found confirming any honour he might have received and in documents
issued in the city after his death he is referred to as plain Simon Eyre. So
not Lord Mayor but simply Mayor of London will have to do for the
time-being.
In any event on reaching this high office Simon and Kathleen Eyre's
celebratory pancake feast at the Mansion House for all the city apprentices
must have been quite an occasion. "The whole party marched there.," writes
Mander "Simon and his wife presided and no guest was allowed to want for
wine or ale".
Also at that time Simon Eyre was instrumental in the financing of the Leaden
Hall city granary. In the early 1300s it had been a private lead-roofed
manor house, belonging to Sir Hugh Nevill. Later it was enfeoffed to Richard
fitzAlan, earl of Arundel, by Nevill's wife Alice and then, in 1380 she
confirmed it to Thomas Gogsall and others. In 1384 it passed to Humphrey de
Bohun, earl of Hereford, and then, in 1408 Robert Rikeden of Essex and his
wife Margaret confirmed it to three-times Lord Mayor of London, Richard
Whittington, with whom Simon Eyre has often been compared.
In 1411 Whittington confirmed it to the mayor and commonalty of London, then
32 years later mayor John Hatherley purchased the licence of Leaden Hall
from the king. A year after that, in 1444, Simon Eyre put up most of the
money to build a granary there. Edward IV granted Letters Patent for the
tronage (weighing) of wares at Leadenhall and another for the tronage of
wool in 1464. This then took the place of an open market that had existed on
that site for over 200 years. Also a gift of Simon Eyre was the tiny chapel
of the Holy Ghost which was for the use of people attending the market and
stood adjacent to the hall.
In his book "The Worthies of England" Thomas Fuller says that over the porch
of Leadenhall "he [Eyre] caused to be written, Dextra Domini exaltavit me
(the Lord's right hand hath exalted me.) He is elsewhere styled Honorandus
et famosus Mercator."
On completing his term of office as mayor Simon Eyre spent the rest of his
life supervising his substantial business interests and carrying out many
public duties from his home in Swan and Hoop Alley (between Lombard Street
and Cornhill, now built over). It was here that he died on 18th September
1459, sadly soon to be followed to the grave by his son and grandson. In his
will he left 5000 marks to charitable uses.
Simon Eyre is buried in the church of St. Mary Woolnorth, Lombard Street,
London.
150 years later the life story of this popular and successful man came to
the attention of an Elizabethan dramatist. In 1600 a play titled "The
Shoemaker's Holiday," was performed before Queen Elizabeth. Set in the reign
of Henry V, in the mayorality of Sir Roger Oatley and the shrievalty of
Eyre, Simon Eyre is the central character, but in this rollicking comedy he
has been transformed from a draper into a shoemaker and his wife's name
changed from Kathleen to Margery. When it was first published, sometime
during that same year, no author's name was given, however, it is generally
thought to have been the work of Thomas Dekker, a contemporary of
Shakespeare's in the Chamberlain's Men company. Following the play's great
success, and not to be outdone, Shakespeare countered with his own comedy -
the Merry Wives of Windsor. Several hundred years later, in 1926, Edith
Evans played Eyre's wife in the first 'modern' production of the play at the
Old Vic Theatre in London. With her starred Balliol Holloway as Eyre a role
also played at one time by Sir Donald Wolfit. More recently Orson Welles
directed a notable production of the play its last recorded performance
having been in 1944.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Place of Shakespeare's Stage in Elizabethan Culture
by Steven Mullaney
http://search.eb.com/shakespeare/esa/660003.html
<<In 1567, John Brayne went east of Aldgate to Stepney, where he erected a
theatre called the Red Lion. It was the first permanent building expressly
designed for dramatic performances to be constructed in Europe since late
antiquity, but the civic authorities of London, who were already unhappy
with playing in the streets and inn-yards of the city proper, were not
amused. Within two years they were complaining about the "great multitudes
of people" gathering out in the "liberties and suburbs" of the city. In 1576
Brayne's brother-in-law, James Burbage, joined the family enterprise by
erecting The Theatre in the liberty of Shoreditch (it was here that
Shakespeare would find his first theatrical home when he came to London,
sometime in the 1580s). The Theatre was joined by the Curtain in 1577, and
in subsequent years the liberties across the Thames would also become sites
of civic outrage, as they became host to the Rose (1587), the Swan (c.
1595), and the Globe (1599), the latter fashioned from timbers of the
original Theatre. By the turn of the century, when the Fortune had completed
the scene, the city was ringed with playhouses posted strategically just
outside its jurisdiction. "Houses of purpose built . . . and that without
the Liberties," as John Stockwood remarked in a sermon delivered at Paul's
Cross (a public site outside of and adjacent to St. Paul's Cathedral, and a
major crossroads of the city) in 1578, "as who would say, 'There, let them
say what they will say, we will play'."
We regard the drama of Shakespeare and his contemporaries as one of the
supreme artistic achievements in literary history; in its own day, however,
it was viewed as a scandal and an outrage--a hotly contested and
controversial phenomenon that religious and civic authorities strenuously
sought to outlaw. In 1572, in fact, players were defined as
vagabonds--criminals subject to arrest, whipping, and branding unless they
were "liveried" servants of an aristocratic household; Burbage's company and
others used this loophole in the law to their advantage, persuading various
lords to lend their name (and often little more) to their enterprise, thus
becoming the Lord Chamberlain's or the Lord Strange's Men. Furthermore,
"popular" drama, performed by professional acting companies for anyone who
could afford the price of admission, was perceived as too vulgar in its
appeal to be considered a form of art. Yet the animus of civic and religious
authorities was rarely directed toward other forms of popular recreation,
such as bearbaiting or the sword-fighting displays that the populace could
see in open-air amphitheatres similar in construction to The Theatre and the
Globe. The city regularly singled out the playhouses and regularly
petitioned the court for permission to shut them down--permission that was
only granted temporarily, in times of plague, in part because Elizabeth I
liked to see well-written and well-rehearsed plays at court during Christmas
festivities but declined to pay for the development and maintenance of the
requisite repertory companies herself.
Attacks on professional popular drama were variously motivated and sometimes
tell us more about the accuser than the accused, yet they should not be
discounted too readily, for they have a great deal to tell us about the
cultural and historical terrain that Shakespeare's theatre occupied in its
own day and time. Nowhere is this more the case than in one of the most
consistent focal points of outrage, sounded regularly from the pulpit and in
Lord Mayors' petitions, toward these "Houses of purpose built . . . and that
without the Liberties"--the place of the stage itself.
The "liberties or suburbs" of early modern London bear little resemblance to
modern suburbs in either a legal or cultural sense. They were a part of the
city, extending up to three miles out from its ancient Roman wall, yet in
crucial aspects were set apart from it; they were also an integral part of a
complex civic structure common to the walled medieval and Renaissance
metropolis, a marginal geopolitical domain that was nonetheless central to
the symbolic and material economy of the city. Free or "at liberty" from
manorial rule or obligations to the crown, the liberties "belonged" to the
city yet fell outside the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor, the sheriffs of
London, and the Common Council, constituting an ambiguous geopolitical
domain over which the city had authority but, paradoxically, almost no
control. Liberties existed inside the city walls as well--it was in them
that the so-called private or hall playhouses were to be found--but they too
stood "outside" the city's effective domain. Whatever their location, the
liberties formed an equivocal territory that was at once internal and
external to the city, neither contained by civic authority nor fully removed
from it.
Clearly, the freedom from London's legal jurisdiction was crucial to the
survival of the playhouses in a pragmatic sense, but the city's outrage and
sense of scandal cannot be fully explained by jurisdictional frustration
alone. The liberties had for centuries performed a necessary cultural and
ideological function in the city's symbolic economy, one that can only be
briefly summarized here but that made them peculiarly apt ground for early
modern drama to appropriate and turn to its own use and livelihood. Early
modern cities were shaped, their common spaces inscribed with communal
meaning and significance, by a wide variety of ritual, spectacle, and
customary pastimes. Inside the city walls, ritual traditions were organized
around central figures of authority, emblems of cultural coherence; the
marginal traditions of the liberties, by contrast, were organized around
emblems of anomaly and ambivalence. Whatever could not be contained within
the strict order of the community, or exceeded its bounds in a symbolic or
moral sense, resided there, and it was a strikingly heterogeneous zone. In
close proximity to brothels and hospitals stood monasteries--markers, in a
sense, of the space between this life and the next--until such Church
holdings were seized by the crown, following Henry VIII's break with Rome;
gaming houses, taverns, and bearbaiting arenas nestled beside sites for
public execution, marketplaces, and, at the extreme verge of the liberties,
the city's leprosariums. Viewed from a religious perspective, the liberties
were marked as places of the sacred, or of sacred pollution in the case of
the city's lepers, made at once holy and hopelessly contaminated by their
affliction. From a political perspective, the liberties were the places
where criminals were conveyed for public executions, well-attended and
sometimes festive rituals that served to mark the boundary between this life
and the next in a more secular fashion. From a more general point of view,
the margins of the city were places where forms of moral excess such as
prostitution were granted license to exist beyond the bounds of a community
that they had, by their incontinence, already exceeded.
This civic and social structure had been remarkably stable for centuries,
primarily because it made room for what it could not contain. As the
population of London underwent an explosive expansion in the 16th century,
however, the structure could no longer hold, and the reigning hierarchy of
London found the spectacle of its own limits thrust upon it. The dissolution
of the monasteries had made real estate in the liberties available for
private enterprises; the traditional sanctuary and freedom of the city's
margins were thus opened up to new individuals and social practices. Victims
of enclosure, masterless men, foreign tradesmen without guild credentials,
outlaws, and prostitutes joined radical Puritans and players in taking over
and putting the liberties to their own uses, but it was the players who had
the audacity to found a viable and highly visible institution of their own
on the grounds of the city's well-maintained contradictions. And it was the
players, too, who converted the traditional liberty of the suburbs into
their own dramatic license, establishing a liberty that was at once moral,
ideological, and topological--a "liberty" that gave the stage an impressive
freedom to experiment with a wide range of perspectives on its own times.
Playhouses also existed within the city walls, but they operated on a more
limited scale. Acting companies composed entirely of young boys performed
sporadically in the city's intramural liberties from 1576 to 1608, when
repeated offenses to the crown provoked James I to disband all boys'
companies. After 1608, at Blackfriars, Whitefriars, and other hall
playhouses, adult companies from the extramural levies moved into the city
as well, and regularly performed in both the hall and arena playhouses.
The boys' repertory was a highly specialized one: over 85 percent of their
dramatic offerings were comedies, largely satirical--a genre that was
conversely rare on the arena stages. The difference is a significant one.
Although satire frequently outraged its specific targets, its immediate
topicality also limited its ideological range and its capacity to explore
broad cultural issues. As dramatic genres, city comedy and satire were
relatively contained forms of social criticism; in terms of repertory as
well as topology, the hall playhouses produced what might be called an
"interstitial" form of drama, one that was lodged, like the theatres
themselves, in the gaps and seams of the social fabric.
In contrast to the hall theatres, the open-air playhouses outside the city
walls evolved what Nicholas Woodrofe, Lord Mayor of London in 1580, regarded
as an "incontinent" form of drama: "Some things have double the ill, both
naturally in spreading the infection, and otherwise in drawing God's wrath
and plague upon us, as the erecting and frequenting of houses very famous
for incontinent rule [author's italics] out of our liberties and
jurisdiction." Playhouses were regarded not merely as a breeding ground for
the plague but as the thing itself, an infection "pestering the City" and
contaminating the morals of London's apprentices. Theatres were viewed as
Houses of Proteus, and in the metamorphic fears of the city it was not only
the players who shifted shapes, confounded categories, and counterfeited
roles. Drama offered a form of "recreation" that drew out socially
unsettling reverberations of the term, since playhouses offered a place "for
all masterless men and vagabond persons that haunt the highways, to meet
together and to recreate themselves [author's italics]." The fear was not
that the spectators might be entertained but that they might incorporate
theatrical means of impersonation and representation in their own lives-
-for example, by dressing beyond their station and thus
confounding a social order reliant on sumptuary codes
to distinguish one social rank from another.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
[Henry V]: Hol. iii,556: 'The mayor of London, and the alderman,
apparelled in orient grained scarlet, and foure hundred commoners.
..met the king on Blackheath' Nicholas WOTTON (1415)
[1 Hen. VI]: Lord Mayor John Coventry (1425)
[Richard III]: Lord Mayor Sir Edmund Shaw, or Shaa(1482),
brother to Dr. Shaw.
[Henry VIII ii]: Hol. iii, 897 Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Seimour/SEMER
(1526)
[Henry VIII v]: Hol. iii, 934 Lord Mayor Sir Stephen Pecocke (1532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1189 Henry FITZAILWYN serving 23 years [ ] Richard I, Coeur de Lion
succeeds Henry II
1212 Roger FITZALAN serving 3 years [ ] Children's crusade
1215 Serlo LE MERCER [ ] Magna Carta at Runnymede
1215 William HARDEL [ ]
1216 James ALDERMAN [ ] King John dies, succeeded by Henry III
1217 Salomon DE BASING [ ]
1218 Serlo LE MERCER serving 4 years second term [ ] Newgate prison
founded, Henry III crowned (1220)
1222 Richard RENGER serving 5 years [ ] St George's Day established as
national holiday in England
1227 Roger LE DUKE serving 4 years [ ] King Henry II declares himself of
age
1231 Andrew BUCKEREL serving 7 years [ ] Coal first mined in Newcastle
1238 Richard RENGER second term
1239 William JOYNIER
1240 Gerard BAT [ ]
1240 Reginald DE BUNGHEYE [ ]
1241 Ralph ASHWY serving 3 years [ ]
1244 Michael TOVY serving 2 years [ ] First "Dunmow Flitch" competition
1246 John GISORS [ ]
1246 Peter FITZALAN [ ]
1247 Michael TOVY serving 2 years second term [ ]
1249 Roger FITZROGER [ ] University College in Oxford founded; Roger
Bacon records the existance of explosives
1250 John NORMAN [ ] Goose quill first used for writing
1251 Adam DE BASING [ ] Kublai Khan becomes governor of China
1252 John TULESAN [ ] The Inquisition first uses instruments of torture
1253 Nicholas BAT [ ] Linen first manufactured in England
1254 Ralph HARDEL serving 4 years [ ] Marco Polo born
1258 William FITZRICHARD
1259 John GISORS second term
1259 William FITZRICHARD serving 2 years second term
1261 Thomas FITZTHOMAS serving 4 years
1265 Hugh FITZOTHO
1265 John WALERAND
1265 John DE LA LINDE
1266 William FITZRICHARD second term
1267 Alan LA ZUCHE
1268 Thomas DE LPPEGRAVE
1268 Stephen DE EDDEWORTH
1269 Hugh FITZOTHO second term
1270 John ADRIEN
1271 Walter HERVEY serving 2 years
1273 Henry LE WALEYS
1274 Gregory DE ROKESLEY serving 7 years
1281 Henry LE WALEYS second term
1284 Gregory DE ROKESLEY second term
1285 Ralph DE SANDWICH
1289 John LE BRETON second term
1289 Ralph DE SANDWICH serving 4 years second term
1293 John LE BRETON serving 6 years second term
1298 Henry LE WALEYS third term
1299 Elias RUSSELL serving 2 years
1301 John LE BLUND serving 7 years
1308 Nicholas DE FARNDONE
1309 Thomas ROMEYN
1310 Richer DE REFHAM
1311 John DE GISORS serving 2 years
1313 Nicholas DE FARNDONE second term
1314 John DE GISORS second term
1315 Stephen DE ABYNDON
1316 John DE WENGRAVE serving 3 years
1319 Hamo DE CHIGWELL
1320 Nicholas DE FARNDONE third term
1321 Robert DE KENDALE
1321 Hamo DE CHIGWELL serving 2 years second term
1323 Nicholas DE FARNDONE fourth term
1323 Hamo DE CHIGWELL third term
1326 Richard DE BETOYNE
1327 Hamo DE CHIGWELL fourth term
1328 John DE GRANTHAM
1329 Simon SWANLOND
1330 John DE PULTENEY serving 2 years
1332 John DE PRESTONE
1333 John DE PULTENEY second term
1334 Reginald DE CONDUIT serving 2 years
1336 John DE PULTENEY third term
1337 Henry DARCI serving 2 years
1339 Andrew AUBREY serving 2 years
1341 John DE OXENFORD
1342 Simon FRAUNCIS
1343 John HAMOND serving 2 years
1345 Richard LE LACER
1346 Geoffrey DE WICHINGHAM
1347 Thomas LEGGY
1348 John LOVEKYN
1349 Walter TURKE
1350 Richard DE KISLINGBURY
1351 Andrew AUBREY second term
1352 Adam FRAUNCEYS serving 2 years
1354 Thomas LEGGY second term
1355 Simon FRAUNCIS second term
1356 Henry PICARD
1357 John DE STODEYE
1358 John LOVEKYN second term
1359 Simon DOLSELEY
1360 John WROTH
1361 John PECCHE
1362 Stephen CAVENDISSHE
1363 John NOTT
1364 Adam DE BURY serving 2 years
1366 John LOVEKYN third term
1367 James ANDREU
1368 Simon DE MORDONE
1369 John DE CHICHESTER
1370 John BERNES serving 2 years
1372 John PYEL
1373 Adam DE BURY second term
1374 William WATWORTH (WALWORTH?)
1375 John WARDE
1376 Adam STABLE
1377 Nicholas BREMBRE
1378 John PHILIPOT
1379 John HADLE
1380 William WALWORTH second term
1381 John DE NORTHAMPTON serving 2 years
1383 Sir Nicholas BREMBRE serving 3 years second term
1386 Nicholas EXTON serving 2 years
1388 Sir Nicholas TWYFORD
1389 William VENOUR
1390 Adam BAMME
1391 John HEENDE
1392 Sir Edward DALYNGRIGGE
1392 Sir Baldwin RADYNGTON
1392 William STAUNDON
1393 John HADLE second term
1394 John FRESSHE
1395 William MORE
1396 Adam BAMME second term
1397 Richard WHITTINGTON
1397 Richard WHITTINGTON second term
1398 Drew BARENTYN
1399 Thomas KNOLLES
1400 John FRAUNCEYS
1401 John SHADWORTH
1402 John WALCOTE
1403 William ASKHAM
1404 John HEENDE second term
1405 John WODECOK
1406 Richard WHITTINGTON third term
1407 William STAUNDON second term
1408 Drugo BARENTYN second term
1409 Richard MERLAWE
1410 Thomas KNOLLES second term
1411 Robert CHICHELE
1412 William WALDERNE
1413 William CROWMERE
1414 Thomas FAUCONER
1415 Nicholas WOTTON
1416 Henry BARTON
1417 Richard MERLAWE second term
1418 William SEVENOKE
1419 Richard WHITTINGTON fourth term
1420 William CAUNTBRIGGE
1421 Robert CHICHELE second term
1422 William WALDERNE second term
1423 William CROWMERE second term
1424 John MICHELL
1425 John COVENTRE
1426 John REYNWELL
1427 John GEDNEY
1428 Henry BARTON second term
1429 William ESTFELD
1430 Nicholas WOTTON second term
1431 John WELLES
1432 John PERNEYS
1433 John BROKLE
1434 Robert OTELE
1435 Henry FROWYK
1436 John MICHELL second term
1437 William ESTFELD second term
1438 Stephen BROUN
1439 Robert LARGE
1440 John PADDESLE
1441 Robert CLOPTON
1442 John HATHERLE
1443 Thomas CATWORTH
1444 Henry FROWYK second term
1445 Simon EYRE
1446 John OLNEY
1447 John GEDNEY second term
1448 Stephen BROUN second term
1449 Thomas CHALTON
1450 Nicholas WYFOLD
1451 William GREGORY
1452 Geoffrey FELDYNGE
1453 John NORMAN
1454 Stephen FORSTER
1455 William MAROWE
1456 Thomas CANYNGES
1457 Geoffrey BOLEYN
1458 Thomas SCOTT
1459 William HULYN
1460 Richard LEE
1461 Hugh WICHE
1462 Thomas COOKE
1463 Matthew PHILIP
1464 Ralph JOSSELYN
1465 Ralph VERNEY
1466 John YONGE
1467 Thomas OULEGRAVE
1468 William TAILLOUR
1469 Richard LEE second term
1470 John STOCKTON
1471 William EDWARD
1472 Sir William HAMPTON
1473 John TATE
1474 Robert DROPE
1475 Robert BASSETT
1476 Sir Ralph JOSSELYN second term
1477 Humphrey HAYFORD
1478 Richard GARDYNER
1479 Sir Bartholomew JAMES
1480 John BROWNE
1481 William HARYOT
1482 Edmund SHAA
1483 Robert BILLESDON
1484 Thomas HILL
1485 Sir William STOKKER
1485 John WARDE
1485 Sir Hugh BRYCE
1486 Henry COLET
1487 William HORNE
1488 Robert TATE
1489 William WHITE
1490 John MATHEWE
1491 Hugh CLOPTON
1492 William MARTIN
1493 Ralp ASTRY
1494 Richard CHAWRY
1495 Sir Henry COLET second term
1496 John TATE
1497 William PURCHASE
1498 Sir John PERCYVALE
1499 Nicholas AILWYN
1500 William REMYNGTON
1501 Sir John SHAA
1502 Bartholomew REDE
1503 Sir William CAPEL
1504 John WYNGER
1505 Thomas KNESEWORTH
1506 Sir Richard HADDON
1507 William BROWNE
1508 Sir Lawrence AYLMER
1508 Stephen JENYNS
1509 Thomas BRADBURY
1510 Sir William CAPEL second term
1510 Henry KEBYLL
1511 Roger ACHLELEY
1512 William COPYNGER
1513 Sir Richard HADDON second term
1513 William BROWNE
1514 Sir John TATE second term
1514 George MONOUX
1515 William BOTELER
1516 John REST
1517 Thomas EXMEWE
1518 Thomas MIRFYN
1519 James YARFORD
1520 John BRUGGE
1521 John MILBORNE
1522 John MUNDY
1523 Thomas BALDRY
1524 William BAYLEY
1525 John ALEYN
1526 Sir Thomas SEMER
1527 James SPENCER
1528 John RUDSTONE
1529 Ralph DODMER
1530 Thomas PARGETER
1531 Nicholas LAMBARDE
1532 Stephen PECOCKE
1533 Christopher ASCUE
1534 Sir John CHAMPNEYS
1535 Sir John ALEYN second term
1536 Ralph WARREN
1537 Sir Richard GRESHAM
1538 William FORMAN
1539 Sir William HOLLYES
1540 William ROCHE
1541 Michael DORMER
1542 John COTES
1543 William BOWYER
1544 Sir Ralph WARREN second term
1544 William LAXTON
1545 Sir Martin BOWES
1546 Henry HUBERTHORN
1547 Sir John GRESHAM
1548 Henry AMCOTTS
1549 Sir Rowland HILL
1550 Andrew JUDDE
1551 Richard DOBBIS
1552 George BARNE
1553 Thomas WHYTE
1554 John LYON
1555 William GARRARDE
1556 Thomas OFFLEY [Merchant Taylors]
1557 Thomas CURTES
1558 Thomas LEIGH
1559 William HEWET
1560 Sir William CHESTER
1561 William HARPER
1562 Thomas LODGE
1563 John WHYTE
1564 Richard MALORYE
1565 Richard CHAMPYON
1566 Christopher DRAPER
1567 Roger MARTYN
1568 Thomas ROWE
1569 Alexander AVENON
1570 Rowland HEYWARD
1571 William ALLEN
1572 Lionel DUCKETT
1573 John RYVERS
1574 James HAWES
1575 Ambrose NICHOLAS
1576 John LANGLEY
1577 Thomas RAMSAY
1578 Richard PYPE
1579 Nicholas WOODROFFE
1580 John BRANCHE
1581 James HARVYE
1582 Thomas BLANKE
1583 Edward OSBORNE
1584 Thomas PULLYSON
1585 Wolstan DIXIE
1586 George BARNE
1587 George BONDE
1588 Martin CALTHORP
1589 Richard MARTIN
1589 John HARTE
1590 John ALLOT
1591 Sir Rowland HEYWARD second term
1591 William WEBBE
1592 William ROWE
1593 Cuthbert BUCKELL
1594 Sir Richard MARTIN second term
1594 John SPENCER
1595 Stephen SLANYE
1596 Thomas SKINNER
1596 Henry BILLINGSLEY
1597 Richard SALTONSTALL
1598 Stephen SOAME
1599 Nicholas MOSLEY
1600 William RYDER
1601 John GARRARDE
1602 Robert LEE
1603 Sir Thomas BENNETT
1604 Sir Thomas LOWE
1605 Sir Leonard HALLIDAY
1606 Sir John WATTS
1607 Sir Henry ROWE
1608 Sir Humphrey WELD
1609 Sir Thomas CAMBELL
1610 Sir William CRAVEN
1611 Sir James PEMBERTON
1612 Sir John SWYNNERTON
1613 Sir Thomas MIDDLETON
1614 Sir Thomas HAYES
1615 Sir John JOLLES
1616 John LEMAN
1617 George BOLLES
1618 Sir Sebastian HARVEY
1619 Sir William COKAYNE
1620 Sir Frances JONES
1621 Edward BARKHAM
1622 Peter PROBIE
1623 Martin LUMLEY
1624 John GORE
1625 Allan COTTON
1626 Cuthbert HACKET
1627 Hugh HAMMERSLEY
1628 Richard DEANE
1629 James CAMBELL
1630 Sir Robert DUCYE
1631 George WHITMORE
1632 Nicholas RAINTON
1633 Ralph FREEMAN
1634 Thomas MOULSON
1634 Robert PARKHURST
1635 Christopher CLITHEROW
1636 Edward BROMFIELD
1637 Richard VEN
1638 Sir Morris ABBOT
1639 Henry GARRAWAY
1640 Edmund WRIGHT
1641 Richard GURNEY
1642 Isaac PENINGTON
1643 Sir John WOLLASTON
1644 Thomas ATKYN
1645 Thomas ADAMS
1646 Sir John GAYER
1647 John WARNER
1648 Abraham REYNARDSON
1649 Thomas ANDREWES
1649 Thomas FOOT
1650 Thomas ANDREWES second term
1651 John KENDRICKE
1652 John FOWKE
1653 Thomas VYNER
1654 Christopher PACK
1655 John DETHICK
1656 Robert TICHBORNE
1657 Richard CHIVERTON
1658 Sir John IRETON
1659 Thomas ALLEYN
1660 Sir Richard BROWNE
1661 Sir John FREDERICK
1662 Sir John ROBINSON
1663 Sir Anthony BATEMAN
1664 Sir John LAWRENCE
1665 Sir Thomas BLUDWORTH
1666 Sir William BOLTON
1667 Sir William PEAKE
1668 Sir William TURNER
1669 Sir Samuel STARLING
1670 Sir Richard FORD
1671 Sir George WATERMAN
1672 Sir Robert HANSON
1673 Sir William HOOKER
1674 Sir Robert VYNER
1675 Sir Joseph SHELDON
1676 Sir Thomas DAVIES
1677 Sir Francis CHAPLIN
1678 Sir James EDWARDS
1679 Sir Robert CLAYTON
1680 Sir Patience WARD
1681 Sir John MOORE
1682 Sir William PRICHARD
1683 Sir Henry TULSE
1684 Sir James SMYTH
1685 Sir Robert GEFFERY
1686 Sir John PEAKE
1687 Sir John SHORTER
1688 Sir John EYLES
1688 Sir John CHAPMAN
1689 Thomas PILKINGTON serving 2 years
1691 Sir Thomas STAMPE
1692 Sir John FLEET
1693 Sir William ASHURST
1694 Sir Thomas LANT
1695 Sir John HOUBLON
1696 Sir Edward CLARKE
1697 Sir Humphrey EDWIN
1698 Sir Francis CHILD
1699 Sir Richard LEVETT
1700 Sir Thomas ABNEY
1701 Sir William GORE
1702 Sir Samuel DASHWOOD
1703 Sir John PARSONS
1704 Sir Chnen BUCKINGHAM
1705 Sir Thomas RAWLINSON
1706 Sir Robert BEDINGFELD
1707 Sir William WITHERS
1708 Sir Charles DUNCOMBE
1709 Sir Samuel GARRARD
1710 Sir Gilbert HEATHCOTE
1711 Sir Robert BEACHCROFT
1712 Sir Richard HOARE
1713 Sir Samuel STANIER
1714 Sir William HUMFREYS
1715 Sir Charles PEERS
1716 Sir James BATEMAN
1717 Sir William LEWEN
1718 Sir John WARD
1719 Sir George THOROLD
1720 Sir John FRYER
1721 Sir William STEWART
1722 Sir Gerard CONYERS
1723 Sir Peter DELME
1724 Sir George MERTTINS
1725 Sir Francis FORBES
1726 Sir John EYLES
1727 Sir Edward BECHER
1728 Sir Robert BAYLIS
1729 Sir Robert BROCAS
1730 Humphrey PARSONS
1731 Francis CHILD
1732 John BARBER
1733 Sir William BILLERS
1734 Sir Edward BELLAMY
1735 Sir John WILLIAMS
1736 Sir John THOMPSON
1737 Sir John BAMARD
1738 Micajah PERRY
1739 Sir John SALTER
1740 Humphrey PARSONS second term
1741 Daniel LAMBERT
1741 Sir Robert GODSCHALL
1742 George HEATHCOTE
1742 Robert WILLIMOTT
1743 Robert WESTLEY
1744 Henry MARSHALL
1745 Richard HOARE
1746 William BENN
1747 Sir Robert LADBROKE
1748 Sir William CALVERT
1749 Sir Samuel PENNANT
1750 John BLACHFORD
1750 Francis COCKAYNE
1751 Thomas WINTERBOTTOM
1752 Robert ALSOP
1752 Crisp GASCOYNE
1753 Edward IRONSIDE
1753 Thomas RAWLINSON
1754 Stephen T. JANSSEN
1755 Slingsby BETHELL
1756 Marshe DICKINSON
1757 Sir Charles ASGILL
1758 Sir Richard GLYN
1759 Sir Thomas CHITTY
1760 Sir Mathew BLAKISTON
1761 Sir Samuel FLUDYER
1762 William BECKFORD
1763 William BRIDGEN
1764 Sir William STEPHENSON
1765 George NELSON
1766 Sir Robert KITE
1767 Thomas HARLEY
1768 Samuel TUMER
1769 William BECKFORD second term
1770 Barlow TRECOTHICK
1770 Brass CROSBY
1771 William NASH
1772 James TOWNSEND
1773 Frederick BULL
1774 John WILKES
1775 John SAWBRIDGE
1776 Sir Thomas HALLIFAX
1777 Sir James ESDAILE
1778 Samuel PLUMBE
1779 Brackley KENNETT
1780 Sir Watkin LEWES
1781 William PLOMER
1782 Nathaniel NEWNHAM
1783 Robert PECKHAM
1784 Richard CLARK
1785 Thomas WRIGHT
1786 Thomas SAINSBURY
1787 John BURNELL
1788 William GILL
1789 William PICKETT
1790 John BOYDELL
1791 John HOPKINS
1792 Sir James SANDERSON
1793 Paul LE MESURIER
1794 Thomas SKINNER
1795 William CURTIS
1796 Brook WATSON
1797 John ANDERSON
1798 Sir Richard GLYN
1799 Harvey Christian COMBE
1800 Sir William STAINES
1801 Sir John EAMER
1802 Charles PRICE
1803 John PERRING
1804 Peter PERCHARD
1805 James SHAW
1806 Sir William LEIGHTON
1807 John ANSLEY
1808 Charles FLOWER
1809 Thomas SMITH
1810 Joshua SMITH
1811 Claudius Stephen HUNTER
1812 George SCHOLEY
1813 William DOMVILLE
1814 Samuel BIRCH
1815 Matthew WOOD serving 2 years
1817 Christopher SMITH
1818 John ATKINS
1819 George BRIDGES
1820 John Thomas THORP
1821 Christopher MAGNAY
1822 William HEYGATE
1823 Robert WAITHMAN
1824 John GARRATT
1825 William VENABLES
1826 Anthony BROWN
1827 Matthias Prime LUCAS
1828 William THOMPSON
1829 John CROWDER
1830 John KEY serving 2 years
1832 Sir Peter LAURIE
1833 Charles FAREBROTHER
1834 Henry WINCHESTER
1835 William Taylor COPELAND
1836 Thomas KELLY
1837 John COWAN
1838 Samuel WILSON
1839 Sir Chapman MARSHALL
1840 Thomas JOHNSON
1841 John PIRIE
1842 John HUMPHREY
1843 William MAGNAY
1844 Michael GIBBS
1845 John JOHNSON
1846 Sir George CARROLL
1847 John Kinnersley HOOPER
1848 Sir James DUKE
1849 Thomas FARNCOMB
1850 John MUSGROVE
1851 William HUNTER
1852 Thomas CHALLIS
1853 Thomas SIDNEY
1854 Francis G. MOON
1855 David SALOMONS
1856 Thomas FINNIS
1857 Sir Robert CARDEN
1858 David WIRE
1859 John CARTER
1860 William CUBITT serving 2 years
1862 William ROSE
1863 William LAWRENCE
1864 Warren HALE
1865 Benjamin PHILLIPS
1866 Thomas GABRIEL
1867 William ALLEN
1868 James LAWRENCE
1869 Robert BESLEY
1870 Thomas DAKIN
1871 Sills GIBBONS
1872 Sir Sydney WATERLOW
1873 Andrew LUSK
1874 David STONE
1875 William COTTON
1876 Sir Thomas WHITE
1877 Thomas OWDEN
1878 Sir Charles WHETHAM
1879 Sir Francis W. TRUSCOTT
1880 William MCARTHUR
1881 John ELLIS
1882 Henry KNIGHT
1883 Robert FOWLER
1884 George NOTTAGE
1885 Robert FOWLER second term
1885 John STAPLES
1886 Sir Reginald HANSON
1887 Polydore DE KEYSER
1888 James WHITEHEAD
1889 Sir Henry ISAACS
1890 Joseph SAVORY
1891 David EVANS
1892 Stuart KNILL
1893 George TYLER
1894 Sir Joseph RENALS
1895 Sir Walter WILKIN
1896 George FAUDEL-PHILLIPS
1897 Lt. Col. Horatio DAVIES
1898 Sir John MOORE
1899 Alfred NEWTON
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Business of Slavery - Chapter 8
http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/business/business8.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amazonia: The under-stated English adventure
Oddly enough, of all the merchant-expansionist groups, the aspiring
exploiters of the Amazon area are some of the most revealing in terms of
merchant-aristocracy linkages, genealogically. With any genealogical
unity notable amongst and between England's notable traders, explorers,
mariners and colonists from before 1600, we find that cloth traders and
their associates were conspicuous - although, somewhat under-rated in
maritime history.
Logwood, as the English called it, rather non-specifically, sometimes
called redwood, was a source of dyes for the cloth trade. It was gained
from near-Caribbean areas where the English had less influence than the
Spanish and Portuguese. The earliest English exploration of the Amazon
River area took place between 1553-1608; the first English and Irish
settlements were made there, 1604-1620.
Now, some earlier-considered names of interest in the context of English
expansionism generally are: Sebastian Cabot, who warned of Portuguese
interest in the area by 1553; Hakluyt the commentator on English
maritime expansionism; Sir Walter Raleigh, inspired by tales of gold, by
1595, and his backers Myddleton. Rowse, Raleigh and the Throckmortons.
London, Macmillan, 1962., pp. 129ff notes Raleigh, and also that the
Throckmortons had been in the service of the Earls of Warwick, who
captured the loyalty of many large families. Newton, Colonising
Puritans, p. 67: Fulke Greville (1554-1628), the first Lord Brooke,
naval treasurer, was an intimate friend of Sir Walter Raleigh and
interested in his colonisation schemes. Brooke also published Sidney's
political tract, Arcadia. Backers of Raleigh or others of Raleigh's
circle included Hugh Middleton (1580-1627, brother of Thomas below), Sir
George Carey, keeper of the Privy Purse Henry Seckford, the great London
merchant and privateer, Lord Mayor Thomas Myddleton (1556-1631), Lord
Charles Howard the Lord High Admiral of England, Baron Effingham.
Raleigh was a half-brother of Sir Humphrey Gilbert; Raleigh's father was
a privateer, and Raleigh began his career working with a London
merchant-privateer, Alderman Watts. Raleigh's cousin, Charles
Champernowne was a privateer.
London Lord Mayor Thomas Myddleton, a Puritan, had a brother, Robert, an
MP and an East India Company investor. Thomas traded from the Elbe River
in cloth, mercery, sugar and spices, and reported to Sir Francis
Walsingham on customs farms matters. He was in partnership with Raleigh,
Drake and Hawkins, and had a sugar refinery in Mincing Lane, London.
Matters do not confine themselves just to the name Myddleton. The
founder of the Spanish Company was Sir Richard Saltonstall (1577-1601).
His daughter Elizabeth married Levant Company merchant, Peter Wyche
(died 1643), and their daughter Jane married John Granville, first Earl
Bath. The Wyches form a separate and interesting line in matters
commercial (see Wood as historian of the Levant Company). Elizabeth's
sister Hester Saltonstall married Sir Thomas Myddleton, her brother, Sir
Samuel was an MP and "colonist", and yet another sister married Thomas'
brother, the MP and merchant, Robert Myddleton.
Soon after Sir Walter Raleigh's first voyage to the Guianas in 1595, the
English explorer Captain Charles Leigh attempted to start a settlement
on the Waiapoco (Oyapock) River, now the border between Brazil and
French Guiana. Thomas Roe, an English explorer of Amazonia, was later
an emissary to the Moguls of India.
Many of the descendants of England's "Amazon adventurers" maintained
their interest in the Caribbean and nearby areas, including Virginia.
They often expressed anti-Spanish sentiments, they elaborated their
interests through layers of merchant, not aristocratic, connections.
Interests in slavery were maintained. And strangely enough, while the
men interested in Amazonia often left the East India Company alone, sans
"gentlemen", they also invested it it. There is the odd sense with the
Amazon investors that in an abstract, financial sense, they "swirl
doubly on" into investment in both Virginian and East Indies trade.
The descendants of the Amazon adventurers dealt with the East India
Company by linkages in the City of London, by financial intermediation -
and some became interested in the colonisation of Virginia. This is
another set of connections which help to explain how it occurred that
there was more regular "flip-flop" of capital between slaving and East
India Company interests than historians have thought. And how is the
proof of this provided? By tracing the long Seventeenth Century infight
between certain English aristocratic interests, and their commercial
underlings over control of the Caribbean.
Deeper into Amazonia:
Sir Thomas Roe had commercial links with Emanuel Exall, John Rizelye,
William Stannarde, John Wightman, Peter Sohier and Robert Smith. Roe
explored the swamps of
Wiapoco and Cuyuni with others who became Virginia pioneers. Roe, also
later a trade emissary to the Mogul Emperor, was a protégé of the sister
of Charles I, the Electress of the Palatinate, Elizabeth. By 1636-1637
Roe wanted a "voluntary war" in the West Indies. Also, Sir Walter
Raleigh; Robert Rich, second Earl Warwick; Robert Harcourt; Roger
North.
Roger North's backers included his eldest brother; Ludovic Stuart
(1574-1624) the second Duke of Lennox), the earls of Arundel (being
Thomas Howard (1585-1646) Earl 14 Arundel, the earls of Warwick, Dorset
(being Treasurer Thomas Sackville (1536-1608) Earl1 Dorset, whose mother
Winifred was daughter of Lord Mayor Brydges); and Clanricarde (being
Richard De Burgh (1572-1635), fourth Earl Clanricarde, third husband of
Frances the daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham and Ursula St. Barbe);
and "the great part of the council", or, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl
of Pembroke, Southampton, Hamilton, and the Marquis of Buckingham.
Thomas Warner accompanied North to areas of Spanish hegemony, Guiana. In
1618, Arundel with the Earl of Warwick proposed a scheme to colonize
Guiana/the Amazon River. Thomas Warner (1575-1649) later governor of
Antigua was son of an old, landed but non-wealthy East Anglian family.
By 1635, John and Samuel Warner were in the Virginia tobacco and
provisioning trade. Thomas Warner by 1622-1625 was backed commercially
in London by Ralph Merrifield (an associate of the Earl of Carlisle),
who was interested in the West Indies.)
From 1609, various English syndicates had been interested in Guiana, and
in 1619, Roger North was backed by the "great colonizing connection"
around Rich, second Earl of Warwick, and raised money. The 1619 Guiana
venture required some £60,000. Massive follow-up funds did not appear,
however. Sir Nathaniel Rich (1585-1636), was second-in-command in
commercial matters for the second Earl of Warwick. Sir Thomas Somerset
(1579-1649) Viscount Somerset. Colonist Sir Nathaniel Rich (1585-1636)
was a grandson of illegitimate descent of Richard, first Baron Rich.
Nathaniel's brother Robert Rich was wrecked with Somers on Bermuda.
Nathaniel, knighted in 1617, was an investor in the Bermuda Company in
1615, the Virginia Company in 1619, in the New England Company in 1620,
and the Providence Island Company in 1630. Robert, first Earl Warwick
(1559-1619), the most powerful landowner in Essex, married Penelope
Devereux and Frances Wray. He obtained a 1619 patent to go the
Amazon-Waiapoco area as an adventurer with the Earl of Arundel, Edward
Cecil, Dorset, Clanricarde, Jo. Danvers and Thomas Cheek.
The Amazon Company of 1619 organized by the Earl of Warwick and Captain
Roger North put men at the head of the Amazon delta. The Spanish however
did not agree. That led to the later first permanent English settlement
in the West Indies. Left alone after the failure of the Amazon venture
was (Sir) Thomas Warner. Later, by 1626-1627 arose the Guiana Company.
In the Caribbean before 1625, Roger North was associated with a company
founding plantations and trading stations on the delta of the Amazon
River. Some notables interested in the Guiana area included: the
Courteens, Daniel Elfrith (about 1619), Sir Thomas Warner of Barbados
fame, and the mariner Roger North. Sir Thomas Roe (died 1644). Sir
Christopher Neville (died 1649). William Herbert, third Earl Pembroke
and Anne Clifford, Baroness Clifford, wife of Philip, fourth Earl
Pembroke. Treasurer of the Guiana Co. was Sir Henry Spelman. Also,
Amazon colonist Robert Harcourt. Sir Thomas Mildmay (died 1625-1626).
Rich, the second Earl Warwick. Thomas Finch, second Earl Winchelsea
(died 1639). George Villiers, first Duke Buckingham. Dudley North,
fourth Baron North (died 1677). Sir Arthur Gorges (died 1661). Henry
Grey Earl1 Stamford (died 1673). Cromwellian Sir John Hobart (died
1683).
On the origin of the English East India Company:
The East India Company's first fleet left with four ships from the
Thames under Captain James Lancaster, in February 1601, for a voyage of
two years, involving ships Red Dragon, Hector, Ascension and Susan,
sailing for Java and Sumatra in 1601. Susan, commanded by James
Lancaster, was owned by London alderman Paul.
A second voyage in 1604 sailed under commander Henry Middleton, to go to
Bantam in Java where Lancaster had left some factors, with Middleton
also to try Banda and Amboina. In 1606 the returning interloper/pirate
Sir Edward Michelbourne had warned the Company that the English at Surat
could expect trouble from the Portuguese. (Middleton later fought the
Portuguese; so did Capt. Thomas Best of East India Co. Voyage 10.)
Trade in pepper and spices was envisaged, competition with the Dutch
became severe; and the Dutch by 1623 drove the English out of Indonesia
except from Bantam, at Java. Bal Krishna, Commercial Relations Between
India and England, 160-1757. 1924.
However, by 1607 the English were lodged at Surat, India, and were
dealing with the Mogul emperor. The English had new stations at Madras,
1639, Bombay, 1662 and the Calcutta area, 1686. The English traded also
with ports of the Persian Gulf and the southern Red Sea. England needed
pepper from the East Indies and saltpetre (for gunpowder manufacture)
from northern India, silk, cotton, indigo, drugs of all kinds.
A useful "merchant list" for other comparative purposes for 1600 and
later includes the names Ralph Freeman of the Levant Company, William
Hawkins the slaver (and naval administrator) with an assistant Captain
Keeling, Abraham Cartwright of the Levant Company, Paul Bayning
(1588-1629), first Viscount Grandison, of the Venice Company; Anthony
Jenkinson of the Muscovy Company, William Salter of the Levant Company,
John Smith the "founder" of the colony of Virginia, and John Dee as an
adviser on navigation. Plus Sir Walter Raleigh, mariner.
The Earl of Warwick, Puritan noble:
With the arrival in London of James I after the death of Elizabeth I
(d.1603), English interest in anti-Spanish privateering abated somewhat,
but interest in Amazon adventures was retained, especially by the first
and/or the second Earl Warwick. The descendants of Amazon adventurers
gradually developed an interest in Caribbean plantations, which also
allowed them to retain their anti-Spanish spirit. Meanwhile, seven or
more Levant Company merchants had helped establish the East India
Company in 1599-1600, and that grouping had little interest in the
Caribbean, or anti-Spanish activity. It was from about 1618 that some
figures interested in Amazon adventures firmed their interest in
Virginian business.
The English historian, Brenner, has only recently outlined the career of
a conspicuously successful seventeenth century London merchant, an early
"expansionist" of the first founding of the British Empire, Maurice
Thomson. K. G. Davies mentions Thomson only briefly in his Royal
African Company. Thomson's name is sometimes given as Thompson, but I
have rendered his spelling Thomson throughout, and similar for his
relatives. To the end of this chapter is a chronologised listing of the
merchant associates of Maurice Thomson, the "merchant banker" who worked
consistently for decades to promote the colonising interests of the
second Earl of Warwick.
Maurice Thomson seems to have been the business manager of the
extraordinarily energetic Puritan noble, Robert Rich (1587-1658), second
Earl of Warwick. In fact, Warwick's business manager was his kinsman,
Sir Nathaniel Rich (1585-1636), so it is possible that Thomson answered
to Sir Nathaniel. In 1618 the ship Treasurer Capt Daniel Elfrith was
fitted with a Savoy Commission as a man-o-war; she carried the first
shipment of Negroes ever sold in Virginia, not indentured, and her
arrival provided Warwick's enemies in Virginia with reasons to attack.
They accused him of piracy, though Elfrith said the Negroes been
obtained properly. Here, Newton, Colonising Puritans, p. 36, notes with
irony that the same man, Warwick, who introduced Negroes slaves into
British America also introduced the charter of Massachusetts, later the
foremost abolitionist state. In 1618, Rich sent his ship Treasurer to
plunder the Spanish West Indies; then he sought to use Virginia as a
base for similar pirating. However, by 1620, Sir Edwin Sandys
(1561-1629) and his circle intervened in this, and brought information
to the Privy Council and the Spanish ambassador.
From 1618 erupted a squabble between the Sandys/Smythe factions for the
role of treasurer of the Virginia Company. The solution to the problem
with the Virginia Company lay in finding a mode of government which
fitted a plantation production system novel to the English; not, as was
the Sandys plan, of finding ways to transplant English community life in
a new environment. It rather seems as if Rich, the puritan Earl of
Warwick realised more astutely than many others that an individualistic
Puritanism that discriminated less against common folk - white colonists
- could solve this problem more easily.
The Sandys faction...
In 1619, Sandys supplanted Smith as treasurer of the Virginia Company.
In the Sandys camp were Wriothesley, Earl Southampton, Lord Cavendish
(William Cavendish (1551-1625), first Baron Cavendish, first Earl
Devonshire), and John and Nicholas Ferrar. Sandys saw "direct links
between power and freedom, company profits and colonial prosperity".
Lord Cavendish also had one-eighth of the Bermudas. It might also be
noted that Frances, sister of Lord Cavendish, married William Maynard,
first Baron Maynard, son of secretary of the treasury for Lord Burghley,
Sir Henry Maynard. Frances' brother Charles, an auditor of the
Exchequer, married Essex Corsellis, daughter of a colleague of Maurice
Thomson, Zegar Corsellis, a Dutch financier. In later generations,
Cavendish women married Charles Lord Rich and Robert Lord Rich.
The pro-Sandys faction from 1618, the year of the "Great Charter" of the
Virginia Company included William, first Baron Cavendish, and
Wriothesley, Earl Southampton, plus brothers John and Nicholas Ferrar.
Squabbling over Virginia, and with company reforms of 1618, Sir Edwin
Sandys' "gentry party" battled Sir Thomas Smythe's "merchant party" for
the position of treasurer of the Virginia Company.
Sandys' party from 1618 ousted the Smythe faction, but still found it
hard to keep Virginia supplied financially. London merchants withdrew
from Virginian adventures, till 1623 when they joined forces to regain
control of tobacco handling. Just who gained that control is difficult
to find, but by 1617, Virginia was shipping 50,000 pounds weight of
tobacco per year, and her planters were developing a boom mentality. (By
1638, Virginia exported two million pounds of tobacco.)
By about 1619, Sir Thomas Smythe led another anti-Sandys faction of
merchants including Sir John Wolstenholme and Sir William Russell, both
leading crown financiers, plus merchants Hugh Hamersley, alderman Robert
Johnson, Nicholas Leate, Anthony Abdy, John Dyke, Humphrey Slaney,
Robert Bateman, Thomas Styles, Richard Edwards (all Levant Men), William
Canning and Humphrey Handford (of the French trade and an importer of
European wares).
(In the late 1620s and early 1630s, a few Levant-East India Company men
also dominated the Russia Trade, being Hamersley, Job Harby,
William Bladwell and Henry Garway.) (Garraway?)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> [1 Hen. VI]: Lord MAYOR John Coventry (1425)
[Henry the Sixth, Part One (Folio) 1.3]
Here Glosters men beat out the Cardinalls men,
and enter in the hurly-burly
the MAIOR of London, and his Officers.
MAIOR. Fye Lords, that you being supreme Magistrates,
Thus contumeliously should breake the Peace.
Glost. Peace MAIOR, thou know'st little of my wrongs:
Here's Beauford, that regards nor God nor King,
Hath here distrayn'd the Tower to his vse.
Winch. Here's Gloster, a Foe to Citizens,
One that still motions Warre, and neuer Peace,
O're-charging your free Purses with large Fines;
That seekes to ouerthrow Religion,
Because he is Protector of the Realme;
And would haue Armour here out of the Tower,
To Crowne himselfe King, and suppresse the Prince.
Glost. I will not answer thee with words, but blowes.
Here they skirmish againe.
MAIOR. Naught rests for me, in this tumultuous strife,
But to make open Proclamation.
Come Officer, as lowd as e're thou canst, cry:
All manner of men, assembled here in Armes this day,
against Gods Peace and the Kings, wee charge and command
you, in his Highnesse Name, to repayre to your seuerall dwel-
ling places, and not to weare, handle, or vse any Sword, Wea-
pon, or Dagger hence-forward, vpon paine of death.
Glost. Cardinall, Ile be no breaker of the Law:
But we shall meet, and breake our minds at large.
Winch. Gloster, wee'le meet to thy cost, be sure:
Thy heart-blood I will haue for this dayes worke.
MAIOR. Ile call for Clubs, if you will not away:
This Cardinall's more haughtie then the Deuill.
Glost. MAIOR farewell: thou doo'st but what thou
may'st.
Winch. Abhominable Gloster, guard thy Head,
For I intend to haue it ere long. Exeunt.
MAIOR. See the Coast clear'd, and then we will depart.
Good God, these Nobles should such stomacks beare,
I my selfe fight not once in fortie yeere. Exeunt.
[Henry the Sixth, Part One (Folio) 3.1]
Enter MAIOR.
MAIOR. Oh my good Lords, and vertuous Henry,
Pitty the Citie of London, pitty vs:
The Bishop, and the Duke of Glosters men,
Forbidden late to carry any Weapon,
Haue fill'd their Pockets full of peeble stones;
And banding themselues in contrary parts,
Doe pelt so fast at one anothers Pate,
That many haue their giddy braynes knockt out:
Our Windowes are broke downe in euery Street,
And we, for feare, compell'd to shut our Shops.
------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Sixth, Part Two (Quarto) 4.5]
1450 Nicholas WYFOLD
Enter the Lord Skayles vpon the Tower walles walking.
Enter three or foure Citizens below.
Lord Scayles. How now, is Iacke Cade slaine?
I. Citizen. No my Lord, nor likely to be slaine,
For they haue wonne the bridge,
Killing all those that withstand them.
The Lord MAYOR craueth ayde of your honor from the Tower,
To defend the Citie from the Rebels.
[Henry the Sixth, Part Two (Folio) 4.3]
Alarums to the fight, wherein both the Staffords are slaine.
Enter Cade and the rest.
Cade. Where's Dicke, the Butcher of Ashford?
But. Heere sir.
Cade. They fell before thee like Sheepe and Oxen, &
thou behaued'st thy selfe, as if thou hadst beene in thine
owne Slaughter-house: Therfore thus will I reward thee,
the Lent shall bee as long againe as it is, and thou shalt
haue a License to kill for a hundred lacking one.
But. I desire no more.
Cade. And to speake truth, thou deseru'st no lesse.
This Monument of the victory will I beare, and the bo-
dies shall be dragg'd at my horse heeles, till I do come to
London, where we will haue the MAIORs sword born be-
fore vs.
But. If we meane to thriue, and do good, breake open
the Gaoles, and let out the Prisoners.
Cade. Feare not that I warrant thee. Come, let's march
towards London. Exeunt.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> [Henry VIII ii]: Hol. iii, 897 Lord MAYOR Sir Thomas Seimour
King Henry VIII Act 2, Scene 1
First Gentleman Yes, but it held not:
For when the king once heard it, out of anger
He sent command to the lord MAYOR straight
To stop the rumor, and allay those tongues
That durst disperse it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Henry VIII v]: Hol. iii, 934 Lord MAYOR Sir Stephen Pecocke.
Act 5, Scene 5
KING HENRY VIII O lord archbishop,
Thou hast made me now a man! never, before
This happy child, did I get any thing:
This oracle of comfort has so pleased me,
That when I am in heaven I shall desire
To see what this child does, and praise my Maker.
I thank ye all. To you, my good lord MAYOR,
And your good brethren, I am much beholding;
I have received much honour by your presence,
And ye shall find me thankful. Lead the way, lords:
Ye must all see the queen, and she must thank ye,
She will be sick else. This day, no man think
Has business at his house; for all shall stay:
This little one shall make it holiday.
> -------------------------------------------
> [Henry V]: Hol. iii,556: 'The MAYOR of London, and the alderman,
> apparelled in orient grained SCARLET, and foure hundred commoners.
> ..met the king on Blackheath' (1415)
King Henry the Fifth (Folio) 5.0]
Enter Chorus.
Vouchsafe to those that haue not read the Story,
That I may prompt them: and of such as haue,
I humbly pray them to admit th' excuse
Of time, of numbers, and due course of things,
Which cannot in their huge and proper life,
Be here presented. Now we beare the King
Toward Callice: Graunt him there; there seene,
Heaue him away vpon your winged thoughts,
Athwart the Sea: Behold the English beach
Pales in the flood; with Men, Wiues, and Boyes,
Whose shouts & claps out-voyce the deep-mouth'd Sea,
Which like a mightie Whiffler 'fore the King,
Seemes to prepare his way: So let him land,
And solemnly see him set on to London.
So swift a pace hath Thought, that euen now
You may imagine him vpon Black-Heath:
Where, that his Lords desire him, to haue borne
His bruised Helmet, and his bended Sword
Before him, through the Citie: he forbids it,
Being free from vain-nesse, and selfe-glorious pride;
Giuing full Trophee, Signall, and Ostent,
Quite from himselfe, to God. But now behold,
In the quick Forge and working-house of Thought,
How London doth powre out her Citizens,
The MAIOR and all his Brethren in best sort,
Like to the Senatours of th' antique Rome,
With the Plebeians swarming at their heeles,
Goe forth and fetch their Conqu'ring Caesar in:
As by a lower, but by louing likelyhood,
Were now the Generall of our gracious Empresse,
As in good time he may, from Ireland comming,
Bringing Rebellion broached on his Sword;
How many would the peacefull Citie quit,
To welcome him? much more, and much more cause,
Did they this Harry. Now in London place him.
As yet the lamentation of the French
Inuites the King of Englands stay at home:
The Emperour's comming in behalfe of France,
To order peace betweene them: and omit
All the occurrences, what euer chanc't,
Till Harryes backe returne againe to France:
There must we bring him; and my selfe haue play'd
The interim, by remembring you 'tis past.
Then brooke abridgement, and your eyes aduance,
After your thoughts, straight backe againe to France.
-------------------------------------------
> [Richard III]: Lord MAYOR Sir Edmund Shaw, or Shaa, brother to Dr. Shaw.
[King Richard the Third (Quarto) 3.1]
Glo. My Lo, the MAIOR of London comes to greete you.
Enter Lord MAIOR.
Lo:M . God blesse your grace with health and happy daies.
Prin. I thanke you good my Lo: and thanke you all:
I thought my mother, and my brother Yorke,
Would long ere this haue met vs on the way:
Fie, what a slug is Hastings that he comes not
To tell vs whether they will come, or no. ( Enter L. Hast.
[King Richard the Third (Quarto) 3.5]
Enter Duke of Glocester and Buckingham in armour.
. Enter MAIOR.
Glo. Here comes the MAIOR.
Buc. Let me alone to entertaine him. Lo: MAIOR,
Glo. Looke to the drawbridge there.
Buc. The reason we haue sent for you.
Glo. Catesby ouerlooke the wals.
Buck. Harke, I heare a drumme.
Glo. Looke backe, defend thee, here are enemies.
Buc. God and our innocence defend vs. Enter Catesby
Glo. O, O, be quiet, it is Catesby. ( with Hast. head.
Cat. Here is the head of that ignoble traitor,
The daungerous and vnsuspected Hastings.
Glo. So deare I lou'd the man, that I must weepe:
I tooke him for the plainest harmelesse man,
That breathed vpon this earth a christian,
Looke ye my Lo: MAIOR.
Made him my booke, wherein my soule recorded,
The history of all her secret thoughts:
So smoothe he daubd his vice with shew of vertue,
That his apparant open guilt omitted:
I meane his conuersation with Shores wife,
He laid from all attainder of suspect.
Buck. Well well, he was the couertst sheltred traitor
That euer liu'd, would you haue imagined,
Or almost beleeue, wert not by great preseruation
We liue to tell it you? The subtile traitor
Had this day plotted in the councell house,
To murder me, and my good Lord of Glocester.
MAIOR. What, had he so?
Glo. What thinke you we are Turkes or Infidels,
Or that we would against the forme of lawe,
Proceede thus rashly to the villaines death,
But that the extreame perill of the case,
The peace of England, and all our persons safety
Inforst vs to this execution.
Ma. Now faire befall you, he deserued his death,
And you my good Lords both, haue well proceeded
To warne false traitours from the like attempts:
I neuer lookt for better at his hands,
After he once fell in with Mistresse Shore.
Dut. Yet had not we determined he should die,
Vntill your Lordship came to see his death,
Which now the longing haste of these our friends,
Somewhat against our meaning haue preuented,
Because, my Lord, we would haue had you heard
The traitor speake, and timerously confesse
The maner, and the purpose of his treason,
That you might well haue signified the same
Vnto the Citizens, who happily may
Misconster vs in him, and wayle his death.
Ma. But my good Lord, your graces word shall serue
As well as I had seene or heard him speake,
And doubt you not, right noble Princes both,
But Ile acquaint your dutious citizens,
With all your iust proceedings in this cause.
Glo. And to that end we wisht your Lordship here
To auoyde the carping censures of the world.
Buc. But since you come too late of our intents,
Yet witnesse what we did intend, and so my Lord adue.
Glo. After, after, coosin Buckingham, Exit MAIOR.
[King Richard the Third (Quarto) 3.7]
Enter Glocester at one doore, Buckingham at another.
Glo. How now my Lord, what say the Cittizens?
Buc. Now by the holy mother of our Lord,
The Citizens are mumme, and speake not a word.
Glo. Toucht you the bastardy of Edwards children?
Buck. I did, wyth the insatiate greedinesse of his desires,
His tyranny for trifles, his owne bastardy,
As beyng got, your father then in Fraunce:
Withall I did inferre your lineaments,
Beyng the right Idea of your father,
Both in your forme and noblenesse of minde,
Laid open all your victories in Scotland:
Your discipline in warre, wisedome in peace:
Your bounty, vertue, faire humility:
Indeede left nothing fitting for the purpose
Vntoucht, or sleightly handled in discourse:
And when mine oratory grew to an ende.
I bid them that did loue their countries good,
Crie, God saue Richard, Englands royall King.
Glo. And did they so?
Buc. No so God helpe me,
But like dumbe statues or breathing stones,
Gazde each on other and lookt deadly pale:
Which when I saw, I reprehended them,
And askt the MAIOR, what meant this wilfull silence?
His answere was, the people were not wont
To be spoke to, but by the Recorder.
Then he was vrgde to tell my tale againe:
Thus, saith the Duke, thus hath the Duke inferd:
But nothing spake in warrant from himselfe:
When he had done, some followers of mine owne
At the lower end of the Hall, hurld vp their caps,
And some ten voices cried, God saue King Richard.
Thankes louing Cittizens and friends quoth I,
This generall applause and louing shoute,
Argues your wisedomes and your loue to Richard:
And so brake off and came away.
Glo. What tonglesse blockes were they, would they not
Buc. No by my troth my Lo: (speake?
Glo. Will not the MAIOR then, and his brethren come.
Buc. The MAIOR is here at hand, and intend some feare,
Be not spoken withall, but with mighty suite:
And looke you get a praier booke in your hand,
And stand betwixt two churchmen good my Lo:
For on that ground Ile build a holy descant:
Be not easily wonne to our request:
Play the maides part, say no, but take it.
Glo. Feare not me, if thou canst pleade as well for them,
As I can say nay to thee, for my selfe?
No doubt weele bring it to a happie issue.
Buck. You shal see what I can do, get you vp to the leads. Exit.
Now my L. MAIOR, I dance attendance heare,
I thinke the Duke will not be spoke withall. Enter Catesby.
Here coms his seruant : how now Catesby what saies he.
Cates. My Lord, he doth intreat your grace
To visit him to morrow or next daie,
He is within with two right reuerend fathers,
Diuinely bent to meditation,
And in no worldly suite would he be mou'd,
To draw him from his holy exercise.
Buck. Returne good Catesby to thy Lord againe,
Tell him my selfe, the MAIOR and Cittizens,
In deepe designes and matters of great moment,
No lesse importing then our generall good,
Are come to haue some conference with his grace.
Cates. Ile tell him what you say my Lord. Exit.
Buck. Aha my Lord this prince is not an Edward :
He is not lulling on a lewd day bed,
But on his knees at meditation:
Not dalying with a brace of Curtizans,
But meditating with two deepe Diuines:
Not sleeping to ingrosse his idle body,
But praying to inrich his watchfull soule.
Happy were England, would this gracious prince
Take on himselfe the souerainty thereon,
But sure I feare we shall neuer winne him to it.
MAIOR. Marry God forbid his grace should say vs nay.
Buck. I feare he wil, how now Catesby, Enter Cates.
What saies your Lord?
Cates. My Lo. he wonders to what end, you haue assembled
Such troupes of Cittizens to speake with him,
His grace not being warnd thereof before,
My Lord, he feares you meane no good to him.
Buck. Sorrie I am my noble Cosen should
Suspect me that I meane no good to him.
By heauen I come in perfect loue to him,
And so once more returne and tell his grace: Exit Catesby.
When hollie and deuout religious men,
Are at their beads, tis hard to draw them thence,
So sweet is zealous contemplation.
Enter Rich. with two bishops a lofte.
MAIOR. See where he stands between two clergie men.
Buck. Two props of vertue for a christian Prince,
To staie him from the fall of vanitie,
Famous Plantaganet, most gracious prince,
Lend fauorable eares to our request,
And pardon vs the interruption
Of thy deuotion and right Christian zeale.
Glo. My Lord, there needs no such apologie,
I rather do beseech you pardon me,
Who earnest in the seruice of my God,
Neglect the visitation of my friends,
But leauing this, what is your graces pleasure?
Buck. Euen that I hope which pleaseth God aboue,
And all good men of this vngouerned Ile.
Glo. I do suspect I haue done some offence,
That seemes disgracious in the Citties eies,
And that you come to reprehend my ignorance.
Buck. You haue my Lord, would it please your grace
At our entreaties to amend that fault.
Glo. Else wherefore breath I in a Christian land?
Buck. Then know it is your fault that you resigne
The supreame seat, the throne maiesticall,
The sceptred office of your auncestors,
The lineall glorie of your roiall house,
To the corruption of a blemisht stocke:
Whilst in the mildnesse of your sleepie thoughts,
Which here we waken to our countries good,
This noble Ile doth want her proper limbes,
Her face defac't with scars of infamie,
And almost shouldred in the swallowing gulph,
Of blind forgetfulnesse and darke obliuion,
Which to recure we hartily solicit,
Your gratious selfe to take on you the soueraigntie thereof,
Not as Protector steward substitute,
Or lowlie factor for anothers gaine:
But as successiuelie from bloud to bloud,
Your right of birth, your Emperie, your owne:
For this consorted with the Citizens
Your verie worshipfull and louing frinds,
And by their vehement instigation,
In this iust suite come I to moue your grace.
Glo. I know not whether to depart in silence,
Or bitterlie to speake in your reproofe,
Best fitteth my degree or your condition:
Your loue deserues my thanks, but my desert
Vnmeritable shunes your high request,
First if all obstacles were cut awaie,
And that my path were euen to the crown,
As my ripe reuenew and dew by birth,
Yet so much is my pouerty of spirit,
So mightie and so many my defects,
As I had rather hide me from my greatnes,
Beeing a Barke to brooke no mightie sea,
Then in my greatnes couet to be hid,
And in the vapour of my glorie smotherd:
But God be thanked there's no need of me,
And much I need to helpe you if need were,
The roiall tree hath left vs roiall fruit,
Which mellowed by the stealing houres of time,
Will well become the seat of maiestie,
And make no doubt vs happie by his raigne,
On him I laie what you would laie on me:
The right and fortune of his happie stars,
Which God defend that I should wring from him.
Buck. My lord, this argues conscience in your grace,
But the respects thereof are nice and triuiall,
All circumstances well considered:
You saie that Edward is your brothers sonne,
So saie we to, but not by Edwards wife,
For first he was contract to lady Lucy,
Your mother liues a witnesse to that vowe,
And afterward by substitute betrothed
To Bona sister to the king of Fraunce,
These both put by a poore petitioner
A care-crazd mother of a many children,
A beauty-waining and distressed widow,
Euen in the afternoone of her best daies
Made prise and purchase of his lustfull eye,
Seduc't the pitch and height of al his thoughts,
To base declension and loathd bigamie,
By her in his vnlawfull bed he got.
This Edward whom our maners terme the prince,
More bitterlie could I expostulate,
Saue that for reuerence to some aliue
I giue a sparing limit to my tongue:
Then good my Lord, take to your royall selfe,
This proffered benefit of dignitie:
If not to blesse vs and the land withall,
Yet to draw out your royall stocke,
From the corruption of abusing time,
Vnto a lineall true deriued course.
MAIOR. Do good my Lord, your Cittizens entreat you.
Cates. O make them ioifull grant their lawful suite.
Glo. Alas, why would you heape these cares on me,
I am vnfit for state and dignitie,
I do beseech you take it not amisse,
I cannot nor I will not yeeld to you.
Buck. If you refuse it as in loue and zeale,
Loath to depose the child your brothers sonne,
As well we know your tendernes of heart,
And gentle kind effeminate remorse,
Which wee haue noted in you to your kin,
And egallie indeed to all estates,
Yet whether you accept our suite or no,
Your brothers sonne shall neuer raigne our king,
But we will plant some other in the throane,
To the disgrace and downfall of your house:
And in this resolution here we leaue you.
Come Citizens, zounds ile intreat no more.
Glo. O do not sweare my Lord of Buckingham.
Cates. Call them againe, my lord, and accept their sute.
Ano. Doe, good my lord, least all the land do rew it.
Glo. Would you inforce me to a world of care:
Well, call them againe, I am not made of stones,
But penetrable to your kind intreates,
Albeit against my conscience and my soule,
Coosin of Buckingham, and you sage graue men,
Since you will buckle fortune on my backe,
To beare her burthen whether I will or no,
I must haue patience to indure the lode,
But if blacke scandale or foule-fac't reproch
Attend the sequell of your imposition,
Your meere inforcement shall acquittance mee
From all the impure blots and staines thereof,
For God he knowes, and you may partly see,
How farre I am from the desire thereof.
MAYOR. God blesse your grace, we see it, and will say it.
Glo. In saying so, you shall but say the truth.
Buck. Then I salute you with this kingly title:
Long liue Richard, Englands royall king.
MAYOR. Amen.
Buck. To morrow will it please you to be crown'd.
Glo. Euen when you will, since you will haue it so.
Buck. To morrow then we will attend your grace.
Glo. Come, let vs to our holy taske againe :
Farewel good coosine, farwel gentle friends. Exeunt.
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.the-quill.com/ShakespearesHouses/NashsPlace.htm
>
> <<John Leland, on his visit to Stratford-upon-Avon around 1540, included
> in his description of the town a 'praty howse of brike and tymbar', built by
> Hugh Clopton, who would become Lord Mayor of London [1491], opposite
> the Guild Chapel, referred to in his will as his 'Great House', and later as
> 'New Place'. The Cloptons sold New Place in 1567. Thirty years later,
> in 1597, it was acquired by William Shakespeare.>>
I wonder if he was related to
Anne Clopton,
(she is in this quote from an earlier post...)
(as the wife of a
Richard Poley,
and
daughter of
Sir William Clopton, Knight,
and
granddaughter of
Katherine Rich)
......
lyra wrote in message <news:4ec4c9f5.03081...@posting.google.com>...>
lyra wrote in message <news:<4ec4c9f5.03081...@posting.google.com>>...
> > Kemps and Poleys link to Essex/Leicester...
> >
> > via the Rich family...
>
>
> Penelope Devereux,
> the Earl of Essex' sister,
> married Robert Rich,
>
> and is the subject
> of Sir Philip Sidney's poems.
>
> He, of course,
> was married to
>
> Frances Walsingham,
> daughter of
> Sir Francis Walsingham.
>
> ........
>
> also,
> Lettice Knollys
> married
>
> 1. the father of
> the Earl of Essex
> (who is her son)
>
> 2. the Earl of Leicester
>
> 3. Christopher Blount
>
> ...
>
> "Some time in late 1585,
>
> apparently due to the efforts of
>
> Christopher Blount,
>
> (Robert) Poley
>
> entered the service of
>
> Sir Philip Sidney,
>
> Leicester's nephew."
>
> (quote from "The Reckoning", Charles Nicholl)
>
>
> "curiouser and curiouser"!
>
>
> .........................................................
>
>
> > some of the family tree...
> >
> > Richard POLEY
> >
> > Born: Abt 1470 Place: Of, Boxted, Suffolk, England
> > Buried: 19 Feb 1546 Place: Boxted, Suffolk, England
> > Married: 1501 Place: Of, Long Melford, Suffolk, England
> >
> > Father: John POLEY
> > Mother: Agnes WHETHILL (WHETLEY)
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Wife's Name
> > Anne CLOPTON
> >
> > Born: Abt 1470 Place: Of, Long Melford, Suffolk, England
> > Died: Abt 1550 Place:
> > Buried: Bef 1550 Place:
> > Married: 1501 Place: Of, Long Melford, Suffolk, England
> >
> > Father: William CLOPTON ;[Sir Knight]
> > Mother: Joan MARROW
> >
> >
> > Joan MARROW
> > Sex: F
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Event(s):
> > Birth: Abt 1460
> > Of, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Parents:
> > Father: William MARROW (MAREWE)
> > Mother: Katherine RICH
> >
> >
> >
> > Katherine RICH
> > Sex: F
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Event(s):
> > Birth: Abt 1440
> > Of, London, London, England
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Parents:
> > Father: Richard RICH
> > Mother: Catherine
> >
> >
> > Richard RICH
> > Sex: M
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Event(s):
> > Birth: Abt 1400
> > Of, London, Middlesex, England
> > Death: 1464
> > Will Proved
> > Burial:
> > Stlawrence Jewry, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Parents:
> > Father: Richard RICH
> > Mother: Mrs.Richard RICH
> >
> >
> > Richard RICH
> > Sex: M
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Event(s):
> > Birth: Abt 1370
> > Of, London, Middlesex, England
> > Burial: 1415
> > Stlawrence Jewry, London, Middlesex, England
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Parents:
> >
> > ................................................................................
> >
> > Marriage(s):
> > Spouse: Mrs.Richard RICH
> > Marriage:
> >
> >
> >
> > Mother:
Art Neuendorffer
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.the-quill.com/ShakespearesHouses/NashsPlace.htm
> >
> > <<John Leland, on his visit to Stratford-upon-Avon around 1540, included
> > in his description of the town a 'praty howse of brike and tymbar',
built by
> > Hugh Clopton, who would become Lord Mayor of London [1491], opposite
> > the Guild Chapel, referred to in his will as his 'Great House', and
later as
> > 'New Place'. The Cloptons sold New Place in 1567. Thirty years later,
> > in 1597, it was acquired by William Shakespeare.>>
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote
>
> I wonder if he was related to Anne Clopton,
> (she is in this quote from an earlier post...)
> (as the wife of a Richard Poley,
> and daughter of Sir William Clopton, Knight,
> and granddaughter of Katherine Rich)
"Major support for Folger exhibitions comes from
The Winton and Carolyn BLOUNT Exhibition Fund"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope Devereux Rich's own JOY also returned: after having spurned
Sidney's advances she apparently had no qualms about becoming the
mistress & then the wife of Lord MOUNTJOY/Charles BLOUNT (1562-1606)
The Mysterious Sir Christopher BLOUNT was:
\
1) possibly the murderer of Leicester,
2) co-conspirator & step-father of Essex (Robert Devereux),
3) step-father of Penelope Devereux Rich Blount (first love of Sir
Philip Sidney & wife of Charles Blount, 8th Lord Mountjoy),
4) brother of Edward Blount - MOUNTJOY's servant (& F.F. publisher?)
5) nephew of Boar's Inn owner Jane Poley,
6) nephew of Stratford's John Combe III,
7) 1st cousin to Deptford co-conspirator Robert Poley,
8) nephew of Anne/Agnes Wentworth, (aunt to Oxford's brother-in-law
William Wentworth).
--------------------------------------------------------------
lyra
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote
I wonder if she is related to the Wentworth
in the Kemp/Poley family tree?
especially since there are Howards involved (like the Earl of Arundel)
(from an earlier post...)
lyra wrote in message news:<4ec4c9f5.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> Kemps and Poleys link to Howards, Aragon, Kings of England etc.
>
> by way of the
> Waldegraves...
>
> some of the family tree...
>
> George WALDEGRAVE
> Sex: M
>
> ..............................................................................
>
> Event(s):
> Birth: 1483
> Of, Smallbridge, Essex, England
> Death: 8 Jul 1528
> , , , England
> Burial:
> Church, Bures St. Mary, Suffolk, England
>
> ..............................................................................
>
> Parents:
> Father: William WALGRAVE
> Mother: Margery WENTWORTH
>
>
> ..............................................................................
>
> Marriage(s):
> Spouse: Anne DRURY
> Marriage: Abt 1507
>
................................................................................
................................................................................
> Margery WENTWORTH
> Sex: F
>
> ..............................................................................
>
> Event(s):
> Birth: 1453
> Codham, Yorkshire, England
> Death: 7 May 1540
> Burial:
> , Bueres
>
> ..............................................................................
>
> Parents:
> Father: Henry WENTWORTH
> Mother: Elizabeth HOWARD
>
> ..............................................................................
>