Elizabeth Plantagenet illegitimate daughter of Edward IV

[Chris]

I was seeaching through some genalogies on the LDS site and came across an
Elizabeth Plantagenet born Abt 1460 who married a Thomas Lumley about 1508
who was the daughter of King Edward IV and an undisclosed woman. Can anyone
throw any light on this, is she listed in the Book - Royal Bastards or is
there any other reference to her?
Many Thanks
Chris Cork

[D. Spencer Hines]

Edward IV did have a bastard named Elizabeth. She may have been the
daughter of Edward's mistress Elizabeth Lucy, however there is no
contemporary evidence to prove it.

She did not marry Sir Thomas Lumley, who became Lord Lumley. He married
someone else.

Elizabeth may have been betrothed to Sir Thomas Lumley's infant
grandson, who was also named Thomas, but proof is failing for that too.

Elizabeth may have been born about 1464.

Vide _The Royal Bastards of Medieval England_, pp. 161-2.

How are things in Israel? I have a lot of admiration for you folks. I
wish many Americans understood better what's going on over there
today ---- and were not so naive about it.
----

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.

Vires et Honor

"Chris" <chr...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:9bfht6$gjf$1...@news.netvision.net.il...

[Brant Gibbard]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:42:47 +0200, "Chris" <chr...@netvision.net.il>
wrote:

On p. 161 Given-Wilson and Curteis say this:

"[discussion of Grace, another illegitimate daughter] ... Little more is
known about Elizabeth. In the sixteenth century it was said that she
married Sir Thomas Lumley, and that 'the advancement of Lumley to be
Lord was by marriage of a bastard daughter of Edward IV'. While this is
an interesting comment on the advantage to be had from marrying a royal
bastard, it is incorrect, for the Sir Thomas Lumley who became Lord
Lumley had a wife with a different name. It is possible that she was
betrothed to his infant grandson, another Thomas, but otherwise nothing
is known of Elizabeth. She is often said to have been the daughter of
Edward's mistress Elizabeth Lucy, and to have been born about the time
of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, and while there is
nothing to contradict this, nor is there contemporary evidence to
substantiate it."

Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.

[Ed Mann]

Descendants of Edward IV of England

1 King Edward IV of England b: 28 Apr 1442 d: 9 Apr 1483 ref #:
F292:7ii
+Elizabeth Lucy ref #: (BRF:141)
2 Elizabeth Plantagenet b: Abt. 1464 ref #: BRF:141
+Thomas Lumley d: 1487 ref #: BxP:338

Alison Weir lists her, although her mother's identity is uncertain.

--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.

Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@atlantic.net

References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
Π= Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat lector.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat lector.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page] Caveat lector.

[Colin Bevan]

Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet appear in the pedigree of the
Lumleys in Surtees' History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of
Durham, 1816-1840.v.2 p.163. It is pretty much the same as what is presented
in Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

An excerpt of which goes thus

1.Sir George Lumley ob 23 Hen VII=Elizabeth, da. and heir of Roger Thornton
of Newcastle
Had issue Thomas, Roger and Ralph
2. Thomas d.v.p.1487=Elizabeth Plantagenet, base da of King Edward IV by
Lady Eliz Lucy
3.Richard succeeded his grandfather ob 26 May 1511=Anne Conyers, da
of Sir John Conyers of Hornby Castle
4.John, Lord Lumley ob.1544=Joan, da of Henry Lord Scroop of
Bolton by Elizabeth da of Henry Percy, 3rd earl of Northumberland. Had issue
3.John d.s.p
3.George d.s.p.
3.Roger had issue
3.Anne=Ralph, Lord Ogle
3. Sibill=William, Baron Hilton
3. Elizabeth=William Creswell of Creswell

Cheers

Rosie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brant Gibbard" <bgib...@inforamp.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Plantagenet illegitimate daughter of Edward IV

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:42:47 +0200, "Chris" <chr...@netvision.net.il>
> wrote:
>

[utopi...@gmail.com]

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/128030480/elizabeth-lucy

[Wjhonson]

Full of nonsense

-----Original Message-----
From: utopian310 <utopi...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 11, 2017 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Plantagenet illegitimate daughter of Edward IV

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/128030480/elizabeth-lucy

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[taf]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:48:38 PM UTC-8, utopi...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/128030480/elizabeth-lucy

As has been commented here before, findagrave is at its worst when those managing profiles try to turn them into genealogical entries, rather than the funerary memorials they were originally intended to be.

Anyone can put anything in a memorial, and there is no good mechanism to deal with a memorial manager who maintains incorrect information. My own great-great-grandparents' memorials are placed in the wrong cemetery (there were two in the same city named for the same saint, and the person who created the memorial arbitrarily picked the wrong one), and though I can document with death certificates, obituaries and cemetery records that the existing placement is wrong, I have been unable to get it changed. I have come across others that just made up birth places, death dates and burial places, but good luck trying to convince the person who made them up that it is not the purpose of findagrave to be a venue for such rampant speculation.

This is only exacerbated when you have to make the argument, all too common in medieval genealogy, that 'yes, you can find books that say that, but they are unreliable books'.

taf

[Dina Grozev]

I agree. Find A Grave was at its best when it was mostly manned by cemetery
volunteers -- whom I'm sure we've all run into in our personal research,
they really care about what they do.

[P J Evans]

Worse, there are people who are using it to ask for information, not because they have information, and that's worse than useless.

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Yes. Best to use Findagrave as a source ONLY when there is a photograph of the actual stone, and use the inscribed info therein. (And possibly when a document like a newspaper obituary has been transcribed.) All other info on the page including relationships should be treated as speculation, or hints for further research, until documents prove otherwise.

[P J Evans]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:48:26 PM UTC-8, jmb...@albion.edu wrote:
> Yes. Best to use Findagrave as a source ONLY when there is a photograph of the actual stone, and use the inscribed info therein. (And possibly when a document like a newspaper obituary has been transcribed.) All other info on the page including relationships should be treated as speculation, or hints for further research, until documents prove otherwise.

Even then - it can be wrong.
I ran into one entry, someone connected to my extended family, with a photo of the marker *and* an obituary. But the woman hadn't died and wasn't buried there: I found two censuses after that where she appeared, one with a daughter living with her, and her listed as either widowed or divorced. (My best guess is that there was a divorce and the husband declared her dead to him, and followed through. Most of the time, it wasn't taken that far.)

[Paulo Canedo]

Or maybe someone wanted to make a cruel joke.

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Wow, that’s ... kind of an impressive length of obfuscation. One would hope that that would be a notably unique situation.

[P J Evans]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 5:37:07 PM UTC-8, jmb...@albion.edu wrote:
> Wow, that’s ... kind of an impressive length of obfuscation. One would hope that that would be a notably unique situation.

I sure thought so.
It is, though, the *only* time I've seen it. (I can understand not talking about the former spouse, but that's as far as most people go.)