Margaret Beaufort’s other family

Stained_glass_in_the_Burrell_CollectionDSCF0301_07.jpgThe Wars of the Roses or The Cousins War as it was called at the time is complicated enough without looking too closely at the relationships that existed between the women of the period and the links forged by marriages often arranged to secure family alliances and extend land holdings. Yet, to do so gives a new insight into the power dynamics, politics and family relationships of the period and also of the Tudor period given that Henry VIII emulated his father when he approached mid-life by starting to execute members of his nobility with too much Plantagenet blood in their veins.

 

Margaret Beaufort and her assorted extended family is typical of the far reaching links that often seem to run counter to what might be expected from the overarching political affiliations depicted in history books. Her mother was Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe. Margaret Beauchamp was married three times. She had children by all three of her husbands. These children were Margaret Beaufort’s half-siblings and thus aunts and uncles of Henry Tudor, thought much less publicized than Jasper Tudor. Margaret Beaufort’s youngest half-brother, John born sometime around 1450, was the child of Margaret Beauchamp’s third marriage to Lionel de Welles, the sixth baron Welles.

 

Lionel died at the Battle of Towton in 1461 fighting on the Lancastrian side. Barons number seven and eight (Lionel Welles’ son and grandson from a previous marriage) had their heads chopped off for plotting against Edward IV in 1470. This resulted in an Act of Attainder and the removal of titles and estates most of which were situated in Lincolnshire. John Welles, not put off by the severing of heads from shoulders, continued the family tradition of loyalty to Lancaster by becoming involved with Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard III in 1483. He then scarpered across the Channel where he joined his nephew Henry Tudor.

 

So far so good – though I admit a family tree would help. He returned to England in 1485 by his nephew’s side, was knighted and got his lands back. He also acquired a bride some nineteen years his junior and who tied him more closely than ever to the royal family.

 

His bride was Cecily Plantagenet, the second daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville to survive to adulthood (her elder sister Mary died young). She had been offered as a bride to King James III of Scotland’s heir in 1474 – and in 1482, the year before Edward IV’s death, to the Duke of Albany although there was the slight problem of Albany already having a wife.

 

Cecily’s grand Scottish match came to nothing. Instead her father died and she found herself in sanctuary for the second time in her short life and no longer a princess. Her parents’ marriage was declared invalid on account of her father’s alleged pre-contract with Lady Eleanor Butler making his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville bigamous and Cecily and her siblings illegitimate.

 

Richard III arranged for his niece to marry Ralph Scrope the younger brother of a northern baron. The marriage was swiftly brought to an end once Henry VII gained the throne. Cecily was required at court and in the hands of a good Lancastrian rather than a supporter of Richard III. In 1486 she carried Prince Arthur to his baptism and in 1487 she accompanied her sister Elizabeth, Henry VII’s wife, to her coronation. By the following year she was married to Henry VII’s less well-known uncle John Welles. This was a clever move on Henry’s part. It rewarded his uncle for his loyalty and ensured that Cecily didn’t acquire an overly ambitious husband.

 

It was, however, a marriage that makes for complicated family ties. Cecily as well as becoming Henry Tudor’s sister-in-law also became his mother’s (Margaret Beaufort) sister-in-law; something of an irony bearing in mind that Margaret Beaufort in the red corner and Elizabeth Woodville in the white corner (Cecily’s mother) were consummate rivals and only united in 1483 against a common foe in Richard III (if popular history is to be believed and we set aside the fact that Elizabeth Woodville not only accepted Margaret Beaufort at court whilst Edward IV was alive but asked her to be godmother to one of her daughters at a time when both women might reasonably have supposed that their positions were established and secure…I did say it was complicated).

 

Cecily and John had two daughters both of whom died in childhood. John died in 1499 and Cecily continued with her duties at court where she seems to have been something of a favourite. She was part of Prince Arthur’s marriage to Katherine of Aragon. Records state that she carried the bride’s train and danced with Prince Arthur at the festivities afterwards. Jones and Underwood note that during this time she and Margaret Beaufort spent time together and seem to have grown to like one another.

 

She was also financially secure. Welles having died without children left a will giving Cecily an interest in his estates for her lifetime. He named her as executor of his will along with Margaret Beaufort’s, and now Henry VII’s, long trusted henchman Sir Reginald Bray.

 

Behind the scenes Cecily was taking her life in her own hands. History knows relatively little of the arrangements behind her first marriage to Ralph Scrope but in all likelihood it was arranged by Richard III who’d promised his nieces marriages to gentlemen (but not nobility of the first order). Her second marriage was obviously political. In that Cecily’s life was no different from countless other women of the period but she was about to break the rules. In 1502, Cecily married Thomas Kyme of Friskney, a Lincolnshire esquire, without royal license and socially far below her in rank.

 

Henry VII was not amused.

 

However, Cecily and Thomas had an unexpected ally in Cecily’s sister-in-law, Margaret Beaufort. Margaret permitted Cecily, of whom she appears fond, to stay in her house at Collyweston until the king’s anger had time to simmer down. She also began negotiations on Cecily’s behalf. As you might expect much of Henry’s anger was about loss of prestige, something important to the parvenu Tudor. But, almost as important to Henry VII was his treasury. As soon as the marriage came to light Henry set about removing the Welles’ estates from his sister-in-law but Margaret, canny negotiator, ensured that Cecily retained some of her lands and was able to pay her way out of trouble though not back into royal favour which may explain why she didn’t attend her sister, Elizabeth of York’s funeral – a noticeable absence after all the other key events she’d played an important role in.

 

Cecily appears to have continued to be often in Margaret Beaufort’s company and when Cecily died in 1507 it was Margaret Beaufort who paid most of her funeral expenses.

 

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

 

 

 

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Fifteenth Century, The Plantagenets, The Tudors, Wars of the Roses

7 responses to “Margaret Beaufort’s other family

  1. Sir Kevin Parr Bt

    We now thank God that Woodvyle and Beaufort families had gone. The one thing that Henry VIII failed to know was the my ancestor was Plantagenet when he married her. Kate Parr was more Royal in bloodline than that oaf of a Tudor ever could have dared to be. Yes you are so right Henry followed his own father in cleaning out all real royals but he missed eight in his rage to rid us. My blood is Plantagenet in every drop i do hold in this mortal body. I am proud of that fact but feel no better than the next man before my God

    • Tanguy

      It is true that Katherine was of royal descent and had Plantagenet blood. But her line from Edward III was like Henry’s father – Beaufort.

  2. Tanguy

    I thought the Cousins War hypothesis had been exposed as the result of a well known fiction writer’s imagination.

    Do you have a list of the Plantagenets that were executed by Henry VII?

    • I suppose the thing is that all the leading families were so intermarried that they were all cousins of some kind or other- the Poles, for instance, were descended from the Duke of Clarence via his daughter Margaret whilst her husband, a staunch Tudor supporter, was the son of a Cheshire landowner and Margaret Beaufort’s half-sister, so doubly Henry VIII’s cousins (not that it did them much good). Henry VII didn’t do much in the way of execution when he came to the throne in 1485, was surprisingly lenient with Richard III’s supporters and then the range of pretenders who initially appeared on the scene (just think about Lambert Simnel). The deaths of assorted Yorkists in 1487 during battle was perhaps fortunate but he appears to have become less tolerant as time passed, understandable perhaps. It must have seemed that he was never free from some sort of plot or other. There are several, often contradictory, schools of thought as to the exact involvement of Margaret of Burgundy in this whole process. Henry VII’s key execution was the Earl of Warwick at the same time as Perkin Warbeck so you’re correct in saying he didn’t exactly pursue a policy of wholesale slaughter but the fact that Edward was perceived to be simple minded has weighed against Henry over the years. However, in my opinion at least, whether he had them executed to facilitate the Spanish marriage or to secure the throne for the Tudors it amounts to more or less the same thing in Henry VIII’s rather paranoid middle-aged mind, i.e. the Tudor dynasty needed to be protected and the way to do that was remove other contenders from the scene. The numbers executed and why would make an excellent post as would the various arguments about the relationships of the Cousins’ War so thank you very much for the comment and I look forward to hearing more views on the subject.

  3. Sir Kevin Parr Bt

    The utterly amazing thing is that Elizabeth would have known if Warbeck was her brother same as Woodvyles but Henry v11 never brought Perkin Warbeck into Royal Circles and Elizabeth of York made no such attempt to see him. Very strange affair and if anything I truly believe Henrys mother Beaufort and Archbishop Morton knew the where abouts or the two Princes. Morton knew far too much about the burial under a pile of stones to be innocent in this singular affair. Both Morton and Margaret Beaufort lay in London at the time of the vanished Princes whilst Richard was far away on his progress to see all of his England. If any from his camp ran back to smother the boys in the Royal Apartments Brackenbury would have reported to the Council as he was a fair man. If they waited for his day off more likely Beaufort who conspired against Richard may have found it easy to blame him for all. Her own son sat waiting to take Richard crown. When Richard was asked were the Princes lay he made no answer. How could he as he had no idea himself.

  4. Ally

    When Henry VII took the throne, did Margaret Beaufort outrank Elizabeth Wydville, even though Elizabeth was Queen dowager?

    • In terms of rank she shouldn’t have but it It hovered, unspoken in the air, that Margaret Beaufort was queen by right in much the same way as Duchess Cecily had behaved when her son was on the throne. So in answer to your question technically Margaret didn’t outrank Elizabeth but I don’t suppose anyone was going to make a point of discussing precedence with the woman who took to signing herself Margaret R – which could have been Margaret Richmond or Margaret Regina…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s