Chapter 3 The soap opera inspiring period of the tudors and the seymours, 16



Download 149.15 Kb.
Page2/4
Date02.06.2016
Size149.15 Kb.
1   2   3   4

Background to the War
In the last years of his reign, King Henry VIII of England had tried to secure an alliance with Scotland, and the marriage of the infant Mary, Queen of Scots, to his young son, the future Edward VI. When persuasion and diplomacy failed, he launched a ruthless war against Scotland, an episode known as the Rough Wooing.
After Henry died, Edward Seymour, maternal uncle to Edward VI, became Protector with the title of Duke of Somerset and with initially unchallenged power. He too wished to forcibly ally Scotland to England by marrying Mary to Edward, and also to impose an Anglican Reformation on the Scottish church establishment. Early in September 1547, he led a well-equipped army into Scotland, supported by a large fleet, which must have been led by his brother, Thomas the Admiral.
The Campaign
Somerset's (Edward Seymour) army was partly composed of the traditional county levies, summoned by Commissions of Array and armed with longbow and bill as they had been at the Battle of Flodden, thirty years before. However, Somerset also had several hundred German mercenary arquebusiers (musketeers), a large and well appointed train of artillery, and 6,000 cavalry, including a contingent of Italian mounted arquebusiers under Don Pedro de Gamboa. The cavalry were commanded by Lord Grey of Wilton, as High Marshal of the Army, and the infantry by the Earl of Warwick, Lord Dacre of Gillesland, and Somerset himself. William Patten, an officer of the English army, recorded its numbers as 16,800 fighting men and 1,400 "pioneers".
Somerset advanced along the east coast of Scotland to maintain contact with his fleet and thereby keep in supply. Scottish Border Reivers harassed his troops but could impose no major check.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Regent, the Earl of Arran, had levied a large army, consisting mainly of pikemen with contingents of Highland archers. Arran also had large numbers of guns, but these were apparently not as mobile or as well-served as Somerset's. His cavalry consisted only of 2,000 lightly equipped riders under the Earl of Home, most of whom were potentially unreliable Borderers. His infantry were commanded by the Earl of Angus, the Earl of Huntly and Arran himself. According to Huntly, the Scottish army numbered 22,000 or 23,000 men, while an English source claimed that it comprised 36,000.
Arran occupied the slopes on the west bank of the River Esk to bar Somerset's progress. The Firth of Forth was on his left flank, and a large bog protected his right. Some fortifications were constructed in which cannon and arquebuses were mounted. Some guns pointed out into the Forth to keep English warships at a distance.
Prelude
On 9 September part of Somerset's army occupied Falside Hill (then known as Fawside, and currently as Fa'side, as in Fa'side Castle), 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Arran's main position. In an outdated chivalric gesture, the Earl of Home led 1,500 horsemen close to the English encampment and challenged an equal number of English cavalry to fight. With Somerset's reluctant approval, Lord Grey accepted the challenge and engaged the Scots with 1,000 heavily armoured men-at-arms and 500 lighter demi-lances. The Scottish horsemen were badly cut up and were pursued west for 3 miles (4.8 km). This action cost Arran most of his cavalry.
Later during the day, Somerset sent a detachment with guns to occupy the Inveresk Slopes, which overlooked the Scottish position. During the night, Somerset received two more anachronistic challenges from Arran. One request was for Somerset and Arran to settle the dispute by single combat. Another was for 20 champions from each side to decide the matter. Somerset rejected both proposals.
The battle
On the morning of Saturday, 10 September, Somerset advanced his army to close up with the detachment at Inveresk. He found that Arran had moved his army across the Esk by a Roman bridge, and was advancing rapidly to meet him. Arran knew himself to be outmatched in artillery and therefore tried to force close combat before the English artillery could deploy.
Arran's left wing came under fire from English ships offshore. (Their advance meant that the guns on their former position could no longer protect them.) They were thrown into disorder, and were pushed into Arran's own division in the centre.
On the other flank, Somerset threw in his cavalry to delay the Scots' advance. The Scottish pikemen drove them off and inflicted heavy casualties on the English horsemen. Lord Grey himself was wounded by a pike thrust through the throat and into his mouth.
However, the Scottish army was now stalled and under heavy fire from three sides from ships' cannon, artillery, arquebusiers and archers to which they could not reply. When they broke, the English cavalry rejoined the battle following a vanguard of 300 experienced soldiers under the command of Sir John Luttrell. Many of the retreating Scots were slaughtered, or drowned as they tried to swim the fast-flowing Esk or cross the bogs.
Although they had suffered a resounding defeat, the Scottish government refused to come to terms. The infant Queen Mary was smuggled out of the country and sent to France to be betrothed to the young dauphin Francis. Somerset occupied several Scottish strongholds and large parts of the Lowlands and Borders but without peace, these garrisons became a useless drain on the Treasury of England.
A violent Reformation in Scotland was only a few years away, but the Scots refused to have Reformation imposed on them by England. During the battle, the Scots taunted the English soldiers as loons [persons of no consequence], tykes and heretics. A thousand monks from various orders formed part of the Earl of Angus's division. Many died in the battle.
David H. Caldwell wrote, "English estimates put the slaughter as high as 15,000 Scots killed and 2,000 taken but [the Earl of] Huntly's figure of 6,000 dead is probably nearer the truth." Of the Scottish prisoners, few were nobles or gentlemen. It was claimed that most were dressed much the same as common soldiers and therefore were not recognised as being worth ransom.
Caldwell says of the English casualties, "Officially it was given out that losses were only 200 though the rumour about the English court, fed by private letters from those in the army, indicated that 500 or 600 was more likely.
Although the Scots blamed traitors within their own ranks for the defeat, it is probably fair to say that a Renaissance army defeated a Mediaeval army. Henry VIII had taken steps towards creating standing naval and land forces which formed the nucleus of the fleet and army with which Somerset gained the victory.
It should be noted that the longbow continued to play a key role in England's battles and Pinkie was no exception. Though the combination of bill and longbow which England used was old, it could still hold its own against the pike and arquebus tactics used in Continental armies at this stage in the development of firearms.
The battle-site is now part of East Lothian.”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDseymourE.htm

“Edward Seymour, the son of Sir John Seymour, and the brother of Thomas Seymour, was born in 1500. After studying at Cambridge University, he saw military service in France in 1523. On his return he worked for Henry, Duke of Richmond, as Master of the Horse.


Seymour's political career improved when his sister, Jane Seymour, married Henry VIII in 1536. Seymour was given the title, the Earl of Hertford, in 1537. Seymour returned to military duty and in 1542 served with distinction in Scotland (1542) and in France (1545).
When Henry VIII died in 1547 Seymour was named as executor of the will. Edward was too young to rule and Seymour was appointed by the Council of Regency as Protector of the Realm. He was also given the title of Duke of Somerset.
The Duke of Somerset was a Protestant and he soon began to make changes to the Church of England. This included the introduction of an English Prayer Book and the decision to allow members of the clergy to get married. Attempts were made to destroy those aspects of religion that were associated with the Catholic church, for example, the removal of stained-glass windows in churches and the destruction of religious wall-paintings.
Seymour also showed concern for the poor and on 14 June 1549, he persuaded Edward VI to pardon all those people who had torn down hedges enclosing common land. Many landless people thought that this meant that their king disapproved of enclosures. All over the country people began to destroy hedges that landowners had used to enclose common land.
This led to the Kett Rebellion in Norfolk. The mayor of Norwich refused to let Kett's army enter the city. However, Robert Kett and his men, armed with spears, swords and pitchforks, successfully stormed the city walls. The English government were shocked when they heard that Kett and his rebels controlled the second largest city in England.
Robert Kett formed a governing council made up of representatives from the villages that had joined the revolt. This council then sent details of their demands to Edward VI. Seymour responded by sending John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, (three years later it will be Dudley who gets Edward executed) and a large army to defeat Kett.
The Privy Council (being led by Dudley) became concerned that Seymour's policies were leading to a popular uprising. In October, 1549, he was removed from power and imprisoned in the Tower of London.
Seymour was released in 1550 and allowed to return to the Privy Council. Seymour soon got involved in a conspiracy and he was once again arrested. Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, was found guilty of treason and executed on 22nd January, 1552.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seymour,_1st_Duke_of_Somerset Here we see that indeed, power does corrupt….
Following his victory over the Scots at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh, his position appeared unassailable. However, the Seymour brothers had accumulated enemies and grudges during their time in royal favour, and, shortly after his brother Thomas's downfall (read execution) in 1548, Edward, too, fell from power. His position, although not his office of Protector, was taken by John Dudley, 1st Earl of Warwick, later 1st Duke of Northumberland; his properties (such as Somerset House, Sleaford Castle and Berry Pomeroy Castle) were confiscated by the crown; and he was executed for treason at Tower Hill on 22 January 1552. I wonder to what extent these “grudges” were the result of the Seymours’ efforts to get John Howard executed in 1547. It probably made others in the Council very wary of them. Dudley was quoted as blaming Anne Stanhope for Edward’s problems, and it was she who prodded Edward to work against Howard due to some insult he made, but based on the history of Anne Stanhope, was probably well deserved.
Council of Regency
Henry VIII's will named sixteen executors, who were to act as Edward's Council until he reached the age of 18. These executors were supplemented by twelve men "of counsail" who would assist the executors when called on. The final state of Henry VIII's will has been the subject of controversy. Some historians suggest that those close to the king manipulated either him or the will itself to ensure a shareout of power to their benefit, both material and religious. In this reading, the composition of the Privy Chamber shifted towards the end of 1546 in favour of the reforming faction. In addition, two leading conservative Privy Councillors were removed from the centre of power. Stephen Gardiner was refused access to Henry during his last months. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, found himself accused of treason; the day before the king's death his vast estates were seized, making them available for redistribution, and he spent the whole of Edward's reign in the Tower of London. Other historians have argued that Gardiner's exclusion was based on non-religious matters, that Norfolk was not noticeably conservative in religion, that conservatives remained on the Council, and that the radicalism of men such as Sir Anthony Denny, who controlled the dry stamp that replicated the king's signature, is debatable. Whatever the case, Henry's death was followed by a lavish hand-out of lands and honours to the new power group. The will contained an "unfulfilled gifts" clause, added at the last minute, which allowed Henry's executors to freely distribute lands and honours to themselves and the court, particularly to Seymour (then known as Earl of Hertford), who became the Lord Protector of the Realm and Governor of the King's Person, and who created himself Duke of Somerset.

Henry VIII's will did not provide for the appointment of a Protector. It entrusted the government of the realm during his son's minority to a Regency Council that would rule collectively, by majority decision, with "like and equal charge". Nevertheless, a few days after Henry's death, on 4 February, the executors chose to invest almost regal power in the earl of Hertford. Thirteen out of the sixteen (the others being absent) agreed to his appointment as Protector, which they justified as their joint decision "by virtue of the authority" of Henry's will. Seymour may have done a deal with some of the executors, who almost all received hand-outs. He is known to have done so with William Paget, private secretary to Henry VIII, and to have secured the support of Sir Anthony Browne of the Privy Chamber.


Hertford's appointment was in keeping with historical precedent, and his eligibility for the role was reinforced by his military successes in Scotland and France. In March 1547, he secured letters patent from King Edward granting him the almost monarchical right to appoint members to the Privy Council himself and to consult them only when he wished. In the words of historian G. R. Elton, "from that moment his autocratic system was complete". He proceeded to rule largely by proclamation, calling on the Privy Council to do little more than rubber-stamp his decisions.

Somerset's takeover of power was smooth and efficient. The imperial ambassador, Van der Delft, reported that he "governs everything absolutely", with Paget operating as his secretary, though he predicted trouble from John Dudley, who had recently been raised to Earl of Warwick in the share-out of honours. In fact, in the early weeks of his Protectorate, Somerset was challenged only by the Chancellor, Thomas Wriothesley, whom the Earldom of Southampton had evidently failed to buy off, and by his own brother. Wriothesley, a religious conservative, objected to Somerset’s assumption of monarchical power over the Council. He then found himself abruptly dismissed from the chancellorship on charges of selling off some of his offices to delegates. His removal forestalled the forming of factions within the Council.


Somerset faced less manageable opposition from his younger brother Thomas Seymour, who has been described as a "worm in the bud". As King Edward's uncle, Thomas Seymour demanded the governorship of the king’s person and a greater share of power. Somerset tried to buy his brother off with a barony, an appointment to the Lord Admiralship (which he stripped from John Dudley), and a seat on the Privy Council—but Thomas was bent on scheming for power. He began smuggling pocket money to King Edward, telling him that Somerset held the purse strings too tight, making him a "beggarly king". He also urged him to throw off the Protector within two years and "bear rule as other kings do"; but Edward, schooled to defer to the Council, failed to co-operate. In April, using Edward’s support to circumvent Somerset’s opposition, Thomas Seymour secretly married Henry VIII's widow Catherine Parr, whose Protestant household included the 11-year-old Lady Jane Grey and the 13-year-old Princess Elizabeth.
This is an entertaining video about Thomas, Catherine Parr Seymour and Princess Elizabeth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2G6fq3EADM
In summer 1548, a pregnant Catherine Parr discovered Thomas Seymour embracing Princess Elizabeth. As a result, Elizabeth was removed from Catherine Parr's household and transferred to Sir Anthony Denny's. That September, Catherine Parr died in childbirth, and Thomas Seymour promptly resumed his attentions to Elizabeth by letter, planning to marry her. Elizabeth was receptive, but, like Edward, unready to agree to anything unless permitted by the Council. In January 1549, the Council had Thomas Seymour arrested on various charges, including embezzlement at the Bristol mint. King Edward, whom Seymour was accused of planning to marry to Lady Jane Grey, himself testified about the pocket money. Most importantly, Thomas Seymour had sought to officially receive the governorship of King Edward, as no earlier Lord Protectors, unlike Somerset, had ever held both functions. Lack of clear evidence for treason ruled out a trial, so Seymour was condemned instead by an Act of Attainder and beheaded on 20 March 1549.
War
Somerset’s only undoubted skill was as a soldier, which he had proven on expeditions to Scotland and in the defence of Boulogne-sur-Mer in 1546. From the first, his main interest as Protector was the war against Scotland. After a crushing victory at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in September 1547, he set up a network of garrisons in Scotland, stretching as far north as Dundee. His initial successes, however, were followed by a loss of direction, as his aim of uniting the realms through conquest became increasingly unrealistic. The Scots allied with France, who sent reinforcements for the defence of Edinburgh in 1548, while Mary, Queen of Scots was removed to France, where she was betrothed to the dauphin. The cost of maintaining the Protector's massive armies and his permanent garrisons in Scotland also placed an unsustainable burden on the royal finances. A French attack on Boulogne in August 1549 at last forced Somerset to begin a withdrawal from Scotland.

Rebellion


During 1548, England was subject to social unrest. Remember that our young John Seymour was a 13 year old orphan boy at this time in Sawbridgeworth. After April 1549, a series of armed revolts broke out, fuelled by various religious and agrarian grievances. The two most serious rebellions, which required major military intervention to put down, were in Devon and Cornwall and in Norfolk. The first, sometimes called the Prayer Book Rebellion, arose mainly from the imposition of church services in English, and the second, led by a tradesman called Robert Kett, mainly from the encroachment of landlords on common grazing ground. A complex aspect of the social unrest was that the protestors believed they were acting legitimately against enclosing landlords with the Protector's support, convinced that the landlords were the lawbreakers.
The same justification for outbreaks of unrest was voiced throughout the country, not only in Norfolk and the west. The origin of the popular view of Somerset as sympathetic to the rebel cause lies partly in his series of sometimes liberal, often contradictory, proclamations, and partly in the uncoordinated activities of the commissions he sent out in 1548 and 1549 to investigate grievances about loss of tillage, encroachment of large sheep flocks on common land, and similar issues. Somerset's commissions were led by an evangelical M.P. called John Hales, whose socially liberal rhetoric linked the issue of enclosure with Reformation theology and the notion of a godly commonwealth. Local groups often assumed that the findings of these commissions entitled them to act against offending landlords themselves. King Edward wrote in his Chronicle that the 1549 risings began "because certain commissions were sent down to pluck down enclosures".
Whatever the popular view of Somerset, the disastrous events of 1549 were taken as evidence of a colossal failure of government, and the Council laid the responsibility at the Protector's door. In July 1549, Paget wrote to Somerset: "Every man of the council have misliked your proceedings ... would to God, that, at the first stir you had followed the matter hotly, and caused justice to be ministered in solemn fashion to the terror of others ...". By that autumn, plans were afoot to eject Somerset as Protector. It looks like according to Paget, who had also been an advisor of Henry VIII’s, that Edward was just too nice a guy……
Fall of Somerset
The sequence of events that led to Somerset's removal from power has often been called a coup d'état. By 1 October, Somerset had been alerted that his rule faced a serious threat. He issued a proclamation calling for assistance, took possession of the king's person, and withdrew for safety to the fortified Windsor Castle, where Edward wrote, "Me thinks I am in prison". Meanwhile, a united Council published details of Somerset's government mismanagement. They made clear that the Protector's power came from them, not from Henry VIII's will. On 11 October, the Council had Somerset arrested and brought the king to Richmond. Edward summarised the charges against Somerset in his Chronicle: "ambition, vainglory, entering into rash wars in mine youth, negligent looking on Newhaven, enriching himself of my treasure, following his own opinion, and doing all by his own authority, etc." In February 1550, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, emerged as the leader of the Council and, in effect, as Somerset's successor. Although Somerset was released from the Tower and restored to the Council, he was executed for felony in January 1552 after scheming to overthrow Dudley's regime. Edward noted his uncle's death in his Chronicle: "the duke of Somerset had his head cut off upon Tower Hill between eight and nine o'clock in the morning".

Historians contrast the efficiency of Somerset's takeover of power, in which they detect the organising skills of allies such as Paget, the "master of practices", with the subsequent ineptitude of his rule. By autumn 1549, his costly wars had lost momentum, the crown faced financial ruin, and riots and rebellions had broken out around the country. Until recent decades, Somerset's reputation with historians was high, in view of his many proclamations that appeared to back the common people against a rapacious landowning class. More recently, however, he has often been portrayed as an arrogant ruler, devoid of the political and administrative skills necessary for governing the Tudor state.


He was interred at St. Peter ad Vincula, Tower of London.
Descendants
Edward Seymour and his first wife Catherine Fillol had two sons:

John, b 1527, or 1518, which is a frustratingly big gap; died 19 December 1552 at either 25 or 34,



Edward Seymour, of Berry Pomeroy, Devonshire, England (1529-1593).

It will be this Edward’s line that eventually becomes Dukes of Somerset, and Marquess of Hertford in 1750.
“In 1540, Somerset, who was now married to his second wife and had become the Earl of Hertford, obtained this grant:
Grant to the earl of Hertford that the lands he now holds in fee simple may descend as follows:—The manors of Mochelney, Drayton, Westhover, Yerneshill, Camell, Downehed, Kylcombe, and Fyffec, Soms., to the heirs male of himself and lady Anne, his wife, or any future wife he may have; with contingent remainders in tail male to Edward Seymour, his son by his late wife, Katharine, dec., one of the daughters of Sir Wm. Fylolle, dec., to Henry Seymour, brother of the Earl, and to Sir Thos. Seymour, youngest brother of the Earl; with remainder to heirs female of the Earl's body; with remainder to the right heirs of the said Edward Seymour. All other his possessions which he has or hereafter may hold to be judged to descend in the same manner.
Under the terms of the grant, Edward, Somerset's second son by Katherine, would inherit only if Hertford left no male heirs by his second or any subsequent wife. John was cut out altogether.
It is not until later that writers would explicitly accuse Katherine of adultery. Peter Heylyn, writing in the seventeenth century, had this explanation for the disinheritance of Hertford's offspring by his first wife:
Concerning which there goes a story, that the Earl having been formerly employed in France, did there acquaint himself with a Learned man, supposed to have great skill in Magics: of whom he obtained, by great rewards and importunities, to let him see, by the help of some Magical perspective, in what Estate all his Relations stood at home. In which impertinent curiosity, he was so far satisfied, as to behold a Gentleman of his acquaintance, in a more familiar posture with his wife, than was agreeable to the Honour of either Party. To which Diabolical illusion he is said to have given so much credit, that he did not only estrange himself from her society at his coming home, but furnished his next wife with an excellent opportunity for pressing him to the disinheriting of his former Children.” http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/maritaledwardseymour.html
Here’s my attempt at translating this olde English: Edward was a superstitious guy, as am I sometimes too, by the way, and while he was working in France went to see a mystic who saw in his crystal ball a vision of some guy that Edward knew having sex Catherine. He so strongly believed in this vision that he went home and disowned his wife, and gave Stanhope an opening to manipulate him into disinheriting his first two sons as well. Let’s keep in mind that this is a story written by some guy a hundred years later, and we’re not given any clue as to why we’re supposed to believe it, but it’s out there, and we should at least consider it. Maybe the truth is that while he was working in France is actually when Sir John and Catherine conceived our John, and when he got home found her pregnant. It’s just as believable. Let’s continue with Susan Higginbotham’s little story about our family:
“A tawdrier explanation can be found in this marginal note that appears in Vincent's Baronage in the College of Arms: "repudiata quia pater ejus post nuptias eam cognovit." This note, which older sources like the Complete Peerage preferred to leave discreetly untranslated, suggests that Katherine had committed adultery with her own father-in-law, John Seymour. Nothing else, however, supports the story that Katherine and her father-in-law were lovers. It is noteworthy that John Seymour did have an illegitimate son, John, who may have been confused with Katherine's son John, thereby giving rise to the report that the elder John Seymour had fathered Katherine's child.
Modern writers, even authors of nonfiction, have improved upon the bare allegation of incest. Alison Weir in The Six Wives of Henry VIII writes that "the scandal had shocked even Henry VIII's courtiers," while Elizabeth Norton in her biography of Jane Seymour states that the relationship between Edward Seymour and his father "would have been irreparably damaged" and that society would have "shied away from any alliance with" the Seymour family. Joanna Denny in her peculiar biography of Anne Boleyn writes of "the great scandal that attached to the Seymour name." None of these writers give any sources for their statements. In fact, there is no contemporary evidence of hostility between John Seymour and his son, no evidence that Somerset's marital difficulties excited any interest at Henry VIII's court at the time, and no evidence that the Seymour family was shunned. Far from being a pariah at court, Somerset enjoyed increasing royal favor throughout the 1520's, long before his sister Jane came to Henry VIII's attention. Thus, while Katherine Fillol may have been unfaithful to her husband, or at least may have been thought by him to have been unfaithful, there is no contemporary evidence to support the later story that her sexual partner was her father-in-law.
Nothing seems to be known about Katherine after her father made his will. By March 9, 1535, when the couple were given a grant of land, Somerset had married his second wife, Anne. It is said in various places that Somerset divorced Katherine, but there are no records of such a proceeding. More likely, Katherine had simply died, leaving Somerset free to remarry.
Somerset did not entirely throw off his sons by Katherine. Accounts from 1536 and 1537 refer to a "Mr. Edward" who was delivered to the Prior of Sempringham and who received a coat, hose, and a doublet, and to a "Mr. John Seymour," who was supplied with money for a winter coat and other necessaries, for "necessaries against Christmas," and for "necessaries against Easter." (It may be, however, that the John referred to was Somerset's illegitimate brother, not his son by Katherine.)
More is known, naturally, about the two men as adults. John Seymour represented Wooton Bassett in Parliament. He is often said to have accompanied his father to prison in the Tower in 1551; in fact, the John Seymour who was imprisoned was Somerset's illegitimate brother. The younger John took advantage of his father's execution in 1552 to attempt to recover lands of his mother that Somerset had sold without her assent. He was successful, but he did not live long to enjoy them. He died in December 1552, unmarried and childless. In his short will, witnessed by his recently pardoned uncle John, he left the bulk of his property to his brother Edward:
That I John Seymor hath and doth give and bequeathe thes p[ar]celles and somes of money as followith /. In primis I give and bequeathe to Mastres Yonge for her paynes taken with me vjli xiijs iiijd /. Item I give and bequeathe to Mystres Alice for her paynes taken with me vjli xiijs iiijd /. Item I give and bequethe unto Thomas Wright my boye xxs /. Item I give and bequeathe unto Nicholas Skynner my s[e]rv[a]unte twentie poundes /. Item I give and bequethe unto Mother Yonge fourtie shillinges /. Item I give to Richard Whytney the lease of Bridgenorth and of Clarley and of Bevyngton which is all but on lease of the kinge / and also I give hym the lease callyd Seynt Mary Lande of Martley /. Item I give to Thomas Bydyll three poundes / Also I make my brother Sir Edwarde Seymor thelder my full Executour and I give hym all my landes and goodes that is unbequeathed he to paie and discharge all my debtes
Witnesses Richard Corbet. John Skynner / John Seymor
John Seymour was buried at Savoy hospital.
Edward Seymour accompanied his father to Scotland in 1547 and was knighted there. He also gained by his father's death; in June 1553, he was granted a number of lands, including Berry Pomeroy in Devon. He married Jane Walsh and died in 1593, a prosperous man. Although he had only one son, another Edward, that was enough to mean that in the eighteenth century , the dukedom of Somerset would pass to his descendants. Two hundred years after Katherine Fillol had been put aside by her husband, her descendants had been restored to their rightful inheritance.”
Now on to 13x great grandma Catherine Fillol
Directory: dokuwiki -> media


Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page