Henry Wriothesley
R. Battle
In looking through the CP account of the Earls of Southampton, I noticed
that it says that Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (of the 2nd
creation) was born 6 Oct 1573. His father, Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of
Southampton, was a prisoner in the Tower of London from October 1571 to 1
May 1573, begging the obvious question as to whether conjugal visits in
the Tower were a matter of course (or if the 3rd Earl was born several
months premature). Added to the mix is the fact that the 2nd Earl later
distanced himself from his wife (Mary Browne, dau. of the 1st Viscount
Montagu) and suspected her of 'incontinency.' Has anyone ever questioned
the 3rd Earl's paternity?
-Robert Battle
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Robert Battle wrote,
According to _Sir Francis Bacon, A Biography_ by Jean Overton Fuller, 1981 pp
104-111:
..."His [Henry Wriothesley] young wife was, however, permitted to visit him,
and it was thus that their son Henry, the future 3rd Earl, was begotten in
the Tower.", but I am not sure of Overton Fuller's source, perhaps it has
been assume from the date of birth of their son, although if there had been
any doubts about the son's legitimacy (because visits were not permitted),
this would have presumably been difficult to hide when the son succeeded his
father.
Overton Fuller also quotes from a letter from Lady Wriothesley to her father
about the brake down of their marriage when their son was almost six years
old. In fact a condition of Henry Wriothesley release from the tower was
that he lived at his father-in-laws house (Cowdrey, where the future 3rd Earl
was born), so I doubt relations had broken down until at least after his
release from the tower.
Adrian
R. Battle
> According to _Sir Francis Bacon, A Biography_ by Jean Overton Fuller, 1981 pp
> 104-111:
>
> ..."His [Henry Wriothesley] young wife was, however, permitted to visit him,
> and it was thus that their son Henry, the future 3rd Earl, was begotten in
> the Tower.", but I am not sure of Overton Fuller's source, perhaps it has
> been assume from the date of birth of their son, although if there had been
> any doubts about the son's legitimacy (because visits were not permitted),
> this would have presumably been difficult to hide when the son succeeded his
> father.
<snip>
Thanks, Adrian. It would be interesting to know if the story of her
visiting her husband in the Tower had a source other than the date of the
younger Henry's birth. I assume that the mechanics and timelines of baby
production were well known, so the fact that nothing seems to have been
made of the date of birth would seem to indicate that there was no cause
for concern.
-Robert Battle
William Addams Reitwiesner
For what it's worth, the DNB article on the second Earl gives some details
on his imprisonment in the Tower, and follows it up with "(Acts P.C.
1571-5, pp. 92, 102, 109, 111, 130, 267)". I presume this refers to the
Acts of the Privy Council. There may be further information there.
The DNB article does not mention their (later) separation.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com
reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org writes:
From Jean Overton Fuller (much of which is in CP):-
Mary countess of Wriothesley seems to have been kicked out of Titchfield to
some lesser property. She was only allowed to communicate to the Earl via
his servant, Thomas Dymock, whom she hated. One letter of hers "My Lord sent
me word by Dymock the other day that it was not in his meaning to keep me as
a prisoner, nor to bar me of my libertie either within doors or without, only
he barred me to his board and presence ... "
The following presumably alludes to the charge of her adultery "And as for
the matter charged of Dogmarshfields [name difficult to read] and his coming
thither, he shall never prove it as he would, except he win some one to
perjure themselves about it, for, by my truth, in my life did I never see him
in that house, neither I assure your Lordship since I was by my lord
forbidden his company did I ever come in it. "
Overton Fuller also writes:
"Seeking to touch his heart, she sent her small son with a letter to him; he
did not read it, but kept the child, whom she never saw again so long as her
husband lived. When he died, on October 4th, 1581, he left a terrible will,
making Dymock his son's guardian and forbidding Mary, their daughter, ever to
be in the same house as her mother. Dymock was an executor of the will, and
none of the other executors, who included the Duke of Northumberland, could
[not] do anything without the consent of this servant. Dymock set off in
haste to get the will proved, and in her extremity the Countess wrote to the
Montagu[e]s' most powerful relation, the Earl of Leicester. Leicester laid
the matter immediately before the Queen, who had the will quashed. The
Countess' daughter was allowed to join her mother at Cowdray, and the young
3rd Earl aged eight was made a ward of Lord Burghley, and therefore spent the
rest of his minority at Theobalds, in Hertfordshire, and so became a
neighbour of Lady Burghley's sister, Lady Bacon, and her family."
I don't know if it is coincidence that the Wriothesley's obtained the title
of Earl of Southampton. Mary Browne's great-grandfather Sir Anthony Browne
was half brother to William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton (the previous
creation)
Adrian