Discussion:
Cecily Plantagenet's Marriage to Ralph Scrope [Revised Post]
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2003-09-30 18:58:23 UTC
Permalink
I appear to have made a couple of typo's in my earlier post. To avoid
confusion, I've decided to correct the typo's and post a revised
version of my first post. Mea culpa. DR

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Newsgroup ~

Polydore Vergil stated in his history of the reign of King Richard III
that just prior to overthrowing King Richard III, while still in
France, Henry Tudor [future Henry VII] received rumor that King
Richard III had married his [i.e., Richard's] niece, Cecily
Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward IV, to an "obscure man." An
exact quote from Vergil reads as follows:

"Henry [Tudor]… he departyd to Roan [Rouen]. While he taryed here,
and riggyd his navy at the mouth of Seyne, a rumor came unto his eare
that king Richard, his wife being dead, was amyndyd to mary Elizabeth,
his brother Edwardes dowghter, and that he had maryed Cecyly, Edwards
other daughter, unto an obscure man of no reputation." [Reference:
Henry Ellis, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History (Camden
Soc. 29) (1844): 215].

Alison Weir makes reference to this passage in Vergil in her book, The
Princes in the Tower (1992), pg. 206, where she states:

"… Vergil states that when Henry Tudor, in France, learned what was
afoot, … [he] was even more downcast when he heard that Richard
proposed to marry Elizabeth's sister Cecily to an unknown knight so
that Henry should be baulked of yet another Yorkist princess." END OF
QUOTE.

Since Vergil first reported the "rumor" of Cecily Plantagenet's
marriage to an "obscure man," historians and genealogists have largely
ignored Cecily Plantagenet's possible first marriage. Recent
scholarly research indicates, however, that King Richard III did in
fact marry Cecily Plantagenet to someone as alleged by Vergil in his
history. The correction volume to the Complete Peerage series, volume
14 (1998), pg. 626 (sub Welles) states that Cecily Plantagenet married

" .... sometime after June 1482, probably after the accession of
Richard III" to "Ralph Scrope of Upsall, brother of Thomas Lord Scrope
of Upsall. This marriage was dissolved in 1486." END OF QUOTE.

The source cited by C.P. 14 for this information is Rosemary Horrox,
Richard III, A Study in Service, 1989, pg. 295.

This past week I had a chance to examine Rosemary Horrox's work and
she mentions Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope in passing
in her book on the page cited by C.P. 14. In a footnote, however,
Horrox in turn cites as her source for this marriage two other works:
R.H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (1974): 160,
note 89; and S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 35–36.

I've since examined both the work by Helmholz and the work by Chrimes
which are cited by Horrox. Chrimes states that all of King Edward
IV's daughters were unmarried in 1485, and, in a footnote, he lists
all of these daughters by name and gives particulars of their lives
and marriages. He includes Cecily in this list but he does not
mention any marriage to Ralph Scrope.

As for Helmholz, on pages 160-161, he includes a long discussion
regarding the lack of surviving divorce reccords in medieval England
for gentry and nobility, which discussion reads as follows:

"The absence of litigants of the upper classes is also worthy of note.
It is fairly certain that the cases where the record gives no
occupation for the parties did not involve people of higher standing.
We can infer this because when they did appear, their status was
specifically identified. Their title was given, they were
specifically styled dominus, or the fact of their lordship of a manor
was recorded. Several examples appears in the Cause papers at York
[see Footnote 89]. In fact, the York records and the
thirteenth-century Canterbury sede vacante material produce almost all
the litigants of the upper classes that we have. In other dioceses,
few or no persons of any rank appear [see Footnote 90]. This may seem
strange. We usually think it was the upper classes which made most
liberal use of marriage law, especially in suits for divorce. The
most likely explanation for their absence from our records is that the
gentry and nobility usually brought their disputes directly to the
bishop, to be heard by him in person or in his court of audience …
Also there is reference to marriage cases involving upper class
families in most Episcopal registers. This again suggests that these
people went directly to the bishop. Perhaps greater privacy was thus
available." END OF QUOTE.

Below the discussion above are two footnotes numbered 89 and 90 which
read as follows:

Footnote 89: "York Consistory Act Book, vol. 4, f. 88r (1486) is a
suit between ‘preclara ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet
contra Radulphum Scrope de Upsall." Other examples of upper class
litigants: York C.P. E 12/1 (1323); C.P. E 46 (1340); C.P. E 179
(1390); C.P. E 259 (1368-9); Canterbury Ecc. Suit, no. 203 (1294); no.
219 (1301); no. 297 (1293).

Footnote 90: "An exception is Lichfield B/C/1/1, f. 270r (1469),
where a litigant was styled armiger."

While Mr. Helmholz makes no effort to identify Lady Cecily
Plantagenet, it is obvious that she was in fact King Edward IV's
daughter and that she was married by King Richard III as alleged in
Vergil's history to someone below her station.

C.P. 14 dates Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope as having
taken place "sometime after June 1482." The June 1482 date appears to
be derived from the first of three documents found in Foedera, by
Thomas Rymer, as follows:

l. Agreement dated 11 June 1482 between King Edward IV and Alexander
Stewart, Duke of Albany, contains provision that if Alexander can make
himself "clere from all other Women," that within the following year
King Edward shall "gyf my Lady Cecille his Douchter on the said
Alexander" [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727): 156–157].

2. Document dated 4 Aug. 1482 regarding proposed marriage of the
"Ritht Noble Princes Cecile" and James, first born son of King James
III of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727): 161-162].

3. Document dated 12 Oct. 1482, whereby King Edward IV utterly rejects
the proposed marriage between his daughter, "Cicile," and James, son
of James, King of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, Fœdera 12 (1727):
165-166].

We see that Cecily Plantagenet was definitely unmarried as late as 12
October 1482, when her father, King Edward IV, "utterly" rejected a
proposal of marriage for her and the son of the King of Scotland. As
noted above, Chrimes' states that all of King Edward IV's daughters
(including Cecily) were unmarried in 1485. As such, the marriage of
Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope must have occurred after 12
October 1482 and probably sometime in 1485, just before Henry Tudor
invaded England and defeated and killed King Richard III as the Battle
of Bosworth 22 August 1485.

As for the identity of Ralph Scrope of Upsall, he is doubtless the
same individual as Ralph Scrope of Masham (or Upsall), 3rd son of
Thomas Scrope, 5th Lord Scrope of Masham (died 1475), by his wife,
Elizabeth de Greystoke. On his brother, Henry's death without issue
in 1512, he succeeded as 9th Lord Scrope of Masham (or Upsall)
[Reference: C.P. 11 (1949): 571-572 (sub Scrope)]. While hardly from
an obscure family, being the younger landless son of a deceased baron,
Ralph Scrope was surely much below Cecily Plantagenet's station.
Curiously, C.P. 14 makes no mention of Ralph Scrope's brief marriage
to Cecily Plantagenet under its listing of corrections and additions
for the Scrope family.

I find that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were blood related as
follows:

John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster
/
Robert Ferrers = (1) Joan Beaufort (2) = Ralph Neville
__________/ _____/
/ /
Elizabeth Ferrers Cecily Neville
=John Greystoke =Richard, Duke of York
/ /
Ralph Greystoke King Edward IV of England
= Elizabeth Fitz Hugh =Elizabeth Wydeville
/ /
Elizabeth Greystoke /
=Thomas Scrope /
/ /
Ralph Scrope married Cecily Plantagenet

The above chart shows that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were
related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of kindred, being both descended
from Joan (or Jane) Beaufort, the legitimated daughter of John of
Gaunt. If so, a dispensation would have been required for this
marriage. I haven't yet checked for such a dispensation, and, if one
knows of its existence, I would appreciate knowing about it.

In summary, it appears that Cecily Plantagenet married sometime in
1485 to Ralph Scrope of Upsall. The marriage was evidently brief and
childless. It was dissolved sometime in 1486. Mr. Helmholz deserves
much credit for the discovery of the divorce record pertaining to this
marriage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com
D. Spencer Hines
2003-09-30 23:45:58 UTC
Permalink
1. Poor Richardson doesn't even understand the difference between a
plural and a possessive.

2. And it's not just typographical errors he makes ---- it's
substantive and factual errors ---- which is potentially fatal in a book
that pretends to be the definitive work on Plantagenet Ancestry.

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

| I appear to have made a couple of typo's [sic] in my earlier post. To
| avoid confusion, I've decided to correct the typo's [sic] and post
| a revised version of my first post. Mea culpa. DR

[...]

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Ed Mann
2003-10-01 00:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Is it possible then that Ralph le Scrope had three different wives, and no
children?

PA:20 has him married to Eleanor Windsor before her marriage to Edward
Neville.

BxP:483 says that his will mentions his wife "Johanna."

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

Regards, Ed Mann mailto:***@earthlink.net

Reference shown is only one of possibly several sources for this
individual. Not all data shown is necessarily from this source.

References:
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:58 PM
Subject: Cecily Plantagenet's Marriage to Ralph Scrope [Revised Post]

<edited>
Post by Douglas Richardson
The correction volume to the Complete Peerage series, volume
14 (1998), pg. 626 (sub Welles) states that Cecily Plantagenet married
" .... sometime after June 1482, probably after the accession of
Richard III" to "Ralph Scrope of Upsall, brother of Thomas Lord Scrope
of Upsall. This marriage was dissolved in 1486." END OF QUOTE.
John Ravilious
2003-10-01 13:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Wednesday, 1 October, 2003


Dear Doug,

Many thanks for your detailed post re: Cecily Plantagenet
and her matrimonial mishaps.

Your efforts in seeking to resolve and correct past
misunderstandings and erroneous attributions concerning our
Angevin antecedents (re: Cecily, Alix de Joinville and many
others) is much appreciated. We're looking forward to
the culmination of this work with the publication of PA 3.

All the best,

John
Post by Douglas Richardson
I appear to have made a couple of typo's in my earlier post. To avoid
confusion, I've decided to correct the typo's and post a revised
version of my first post. Mea culpa. DR
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Newsgroup ~
Polydore Vergil stated in his history of the reign of King Richard III
that just prior to overthrowing King Richard III, while still in
France, Henry Tudor [future Henry VII] received rumor that King
Richard III had married his [i.e., Richard's] niece, Cecily
Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward IV, to an "obscure man." An
"Henry [Tudor]? he departyd to Roan [Rouen]. While he taryed here,
and riggyd his navy at the mouth of Seyne, a rumor came unto his eare
that king Richard, his wife being dead, was amyndyd to mary Elizabeth,
his brother Edwardes dowghter, and that he had maryed Cecyly, Edwards
Henry Ellis, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History (Camden
Soc. 29) (1844): 215].
Alison Weir makes reference to this passage in Vergil in her book, The
"? Vergil states that when Henry Tudor, in France, learned what was
afoot, ? [he] was even more downcast when he heard that Richard
proposed to marry Elizabeth's sister Cecily to an unknown knight so
that Henry should be baulked of yet another Yorkist princess." END OF
QUOTE.
Since Vergil first reported the "rumor" of Cecily Plantagenet's
marriage to an "obscure man," historians and genealogists have largely
ignored Cecily Plantagenet's possible first marriage. Recent
scholarly research indicates, however, that King Richard III did in
fact marry Cecily Plantagenet to someone as alleged by Vergil in his
history. The correction volume to the Complete Peerage series, volume
14 (1998), pg. 626 (sub Welles) states that Cecily Plantagenet married
" .... sometime after June 1482, probably after the accession of
Richard III" to "Ralph Scrope of Upsall, brother of Thomas Lord Scrope
of Upsall. This marriage was dissolved in 1486." END OF QUOTE.
The source cited by C.P. 14 for this information is Rosemary Horrox,
Richard III, A Study in Service, 1989, pg. 295.
This past week I had a chance to examine Rosemary Horrox's work and
she mentions Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope in passing
in her book on the page cited by C.P. 14. In a footnote, however,
R.H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (1974): 160,
note 89; and S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 35?36.
I've since examined both the work by Helmholz and the work by Chrimes
which are cited by Horrox. Chrimes states that all of King Edward
IV's daughters were unmarried in 1485, and, in a footnote, he lists
all of these daughters by name and gives particulars of their lives
and marriages. He includes Cecily in this list but he does not
mention any marriage to Ralph Scrope.
As for Helmholz, on pages 160-161, he includes a long discussion
regarding the lack of surviving divorce reccords in medieval England
"The absence of litigants of the upper classes is also worthy of note.
It is fairly certain that the cases where the record gives no
occupation for the parties did not involve people of higher standing.
We can infer this because when they did appear, their status was
specifically identified. Their title was given, they were
specifically styled dominus, or the fact of their lordship of a manor
was recorded. Several examples appears in the Cause papers at York
[see Footnote 89]. In fact, the York records and the
thirteenth-century Canterbury sede vacante material produce almost all
the litigants of the upper classes that we have. In other dioceses,
few or no persons of any rank appear [see Footnote 90]. This may seem
strange. We usually think it was the upper classes which made most
liberal use of marriage law, especially in suits for divorce. The
most likely explanation for their absence from our records is that the
gentry and nobility usually brought their disputes directly to the
bishop, to be heard by him in person or in his court of audience ?
Also there is reference to marriage cases involving upper class
families in most Episcopal registers. This again suggests that these
people went directly to the bishop. Perhaps greater privacy was thus
available." END OF QUOTE.
Below the discussion above are two footnotes numbered 89 and 90 which
Footnote 89: "York Consistory Act Book, vol. 4, f. 88r (1486) is a
suit between ?preclara ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet
contra Radulphum Scrope de Upsall." Other examples of upper class
litigants: York C.P. E 12/1 (1323); C.P. E 46 (1340); C.P. E 179
(1390); C.P. E 259 (1368-9); Canterbury Ecc. Suit, no. 203 (1294); no.
219 (1301); no. 297 (1293).
Footnote 90: "An exception is Lichfield B/C/1/1, f. 270r (1469),
where a litigant was styled armiger."
While Mr. Helmholz makes no effort to identify Lady Cecily
Plantagenet, it is obvious that she was in fact King Edward IV's
daughter and that she was married by King Richard III as alleged in
Vergil's history to someone below her station.
C.P. 14 dates Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope as having
taken place "sometime after June 1482." The June 1482 date appears to
be derived from the first of three documents found in Foedera, by
l. Agreement dated 11 June 1482 between King Edward IV and Alexander
Stewart, Duke of Albany, contains provision that if Alexander can make
himself "clere from all other Women," that within the following year
King Edward shall "gyf my Lady Cecille his Douchter on the said
Alexander" [Reference: T. Rymer, F?dera 12 (1727): 156?157].
2. Document dated 4 Aug. 1482 regarding proposed marriage of the
"Ritht Noble Princes Cecile" and James, first born son of King James
III of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, F?dera 12 (1727): 161-162].
3. Document dated 12 Oct. 1482, whereby King Edward IV utterly rejects
the proposed marriage between his daughter, "Cicile," and James, son
165-166].
We see that Cecily Plantagenet was definitely unmarried as late as 12
October 1482, when her father, King Edward IV, "utterly" rejected a
proposal of marriage for her and the son of the King of Scotland. As
noted above, Chrimes' states that all of King Edward IV's daughters
(including Cecily) were unmarried in 1485. As such, the marriage of
Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope must have occurred after 12
October 1482 and probably sometime in 1485, just before Henry Tudor
invaded England and defeated and killed King Richard III as the Battle
of Bosworth 22 August 1485.
As for the identity of Ralph Scrope of Upsall, he is doubtless the
same individual as Ralph Scrope of Masham (or Upsall), 3rd son of
Thomas Scrope, 5th Lord Scrope of Masham (died 1475), by his wife,
Elizabeth de Greystoke. On his brother, Henry's death without issue
in 1512, he succeeded as 9th Lord Scrope of Masham (or Upsall)
[Reference: C.P. 11 (1949): 571-572 (sub Scrope)]. While hardly from
an obscure family, being the younger landless son of a deceased baron,
Ralph Scrope was surely much below Cecily Plantagenet's station.
Curiously, C.P. 14 makes no mention of Ralph Scrope's brief marriage
to Cecily Plantagenet under its listing of corrections and additions
for the Scrope family.
I find that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were blood related as
John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster
/
Robert Ferrers = (1) Joan Beaufort (2) = Ralph Neville
__________/ _____/
/ /
Elizabeth Ferrers Cecily Neville
=John Greystoke =Richard, Duke of York
/ /
Ralph Greystoke King Edward IV of England
= Elizabeth Fitz Hugh =Elizabeth Wydeville
/ /
Elizabeth Greystoke /
=Thomas Scrope /
/ /
Ralph Scrope married Cecily Plantagenet
The above chart shows that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were
related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of kindred, being both descended
from Joan (or Jane) Beaufort, the legitimated daughter of John of
Gaunt. If so, a dispensation would have been required for this
marriage. I haven't yet checked for such a dispensation, and, if one
knows of its existence, I would appreciate knowing about it.
In summary, it appears that Cecily Plantagenet married sometime in
1485 to Ralph Scrope of Upsall. The marriage was evidently brief and
childless. It was dissolved sometime in 1486. Mr. Helmholz deserves
much credit for the discovery of the divorce record pertaining to this
marriage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hugh Jones
2003-10-02 04:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
I appear to have made a couple of typo's in my earlier post. To avoid
confusion, I've decided to correct the typo's and post a revised
version of my first post. Mea culpa. DR
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Newsgroup ~
Polydore Vergil stated in his history of the reign of King Richard III
that just prior to overthrowing King Richard III, while still in
France, Henry Tudor [future Henry VII] received rumor that King
Richard III had married his [i.e., Richard's] niece, Cecily
Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward IV, to an "obscure man." An
"Henry [Tudor]? he departyd to Roan [Rouen]. While he taryed here,
and riggyd his navy at the mouth of Seyne, a rumor came unto his eare
that king Richard, his wife being dead, was amyndyd to mary Elizabeth,
his brother Edwardes dowghter, and that he had maryed Cecyly, Edwards
Henry Ellis, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History (Camden
Soc. 29) (1844): 215].
Alison Weir makes reference to this passage in Vergil in her book, The
"? Vergil states that when Henry Tudor, in France, learned what was
afoot, ? [he] was even more downcast when he heard that Richard
proposed to marry Elizabeth's sister Cecily to an unknown knight so
that Henry should be baulked of yet another Yorkist princess." END OF
QUOTE.
Since Vergil first reported the "rumor" of Cecily Plantagenet's
marriage to an "obscure man," historians and genealogists have largely
ignored Cecily Plantagenet's possible first marriage. Recent
scholarly research indicates, however, that King Richard III did in
fact marry Cecily Plantagenet to someone as alleged by Vergil in his
history. The correction volume to the Complete Peerage series, volume
14 (1998), pg. 626 (sub Welles) states that Cecily Plantagenet married
" .... sometime after June 1482, probably after the accession of
Richard III" to "Ralph Scrope of Upsall, brother of Thomas Lord Scrope
of Upsall. This marriage was dissolved in 1486." END OF QUOTE.
The source cited by C.P. 14 for this information is Rosemary Horrox,
Richard III, A Study in Service, 1989, pg. 295.
This past week I had a chance to examine Rosemary Horrox's work and
she mentions Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope in passing
in her book on the page cited by C.P. 14. In a footnote, however,
R.H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (1974): 160,
note 89; and S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 35?36.
I've since examined both the work by Helmholz and the work by Chrimes
which are cited by Horrox. Chrimes states that all of King Edward
IV's daughters were unmarried in 1485, and, in a footnote, he lists
all of these daughters by name and gives particulars of their lives
and marriages. He includes Cecily in this list but he does not
mention any marriage to Ralph Scrope.
As for Helmholz, on pages 160-161, he includes a long discussion
regarding the lack of surviving divorce reccords in medieval England
"The absence of litigants of the upper classes is also worthy of note.
It is fairly certain that the cases where the record gives no
occupation for the parties did not involve people of higher standing.
We can infer this because when they did appear, their status was
specifically identified. Their title was given, they were
specifically styled dominus, or the fact of their lordship of a manor
was recorded. Several examples appears in the Cause papers at York
[see Footnote 89]. In fact, the York records and the
thirteenth-century Canterbury sede vacante material produce almost all
the litigants of the upper classes that we have. In other dioceses,
few or no persons of any rank appear [see Footnote 90]. This may seem
strange. We usually think it was the upper classes which made most
liberal use of marriage law, especially in suits for divorce. The
most likely explanation for their absence from our records is that the
gentry and nobility usually brought their disputes directly to the
bishop, to be heard by him in person or in his court of audience ?
Also there is reference to marriage cases involving upper class
families in most Episcopal registers. This again suggests that these
people went directly to the bishop. Perhaps greater privacy was thus
available." END OF QUOTE.
Below the discussion above are two footnotes numbered 89 and 90 which
Footnote 89: "York Consistory Act Book, vol. 4, f. 88r (1486) is a
suit between ?preclara ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet
contra Radulphum Scrope de Upsall." Other examples of upper class
litigants: York C.P. E 12/1 (1323); C.P. E 46 (1340); C.P. E 179
(1390); C.P. E 259 (1368-9); Canterbury Ecc. Suit, no. 203 (1294); no.
219 (1301); no. 297 (1293).
Footnote 90: "An exception is Lichfield B/C/1/1, f. 270r (1469),
where a litigant was styled armiger."
While Mr. Helmholz makes no effort to identify Lady Cecily
Plantagenet, it is obvious that she was in fact King Edward IV's
daughter and that she was married by King Richard III as alleged in
Vergil's history to someone below her station.
C.P. 14 dates Cecily Plantagenet's marriage to Ralph Scrope as having
taken place "sometime after June 1482." The June 1482 date appears to
be derived from the first of three documents found in Foedera, by
l. Agreement dated 11 June 1482 between King Edward IV and Alexander
Stewart, Duke of Albany, contains provision that if Alexander can make
himself "clere from all other Women," that within the following year
King Edward shall "gyf my Lady Cecille his Douchter on the said
Alexander" [Reference: T. Rymer, F?dera 12 (1727): 156?157].
2. Document dated 4 Aug. 1482 regarding proposed marriage of the
"Ritht Noble Princes Cecile" and James, first born son of King James
III of Scotland [Reference: T. Rymer, F?dera 12 (1727): 161-162].
3. Document dated 12 Oct. 1482, whereby King Edward IV utterly rejects
the proposed marriage between his daughter, "Cicile," and James, son
165-166].
We see that Cecily Plantagenet was definitely unmarried as late as 12
October 1482, when her father, King Edward IV, "utterly" rejected a
proposal of marriage for her and the son of the King of Scotland. As
noted above, Chrimes' states that all of King Edward IV's daughters
(including Cecily) were unmarried in 1485. As such, the marriage of
Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope must have occurred after 12
October 1482 and probably sometime in 1485, just before Henry Tudor
invaded England and defeated and killed King Richard III as the Battle
of Bosworth 22 August 1485.
As for the identity of Ralph Scrope of Upsall, he is doubtless the
same individual as Ralph Scrope of Masham (or Upsall), 3rd son of
Thomas Scrope, 5th Lord Scrope of Masham (died 1475), by his wife,
Elizabeth de Greystoke. On his brother, Henry's death without issue
in 1512, he succeeded as 9th Lord Scrope of Masham (or Upsall)
[Reference: C.P. 11 (1949): 571-572 (sub Scrope)]. While hardly from
an obscure family, being the younger landless son of a deceased baron,
Ralph Scrope was surely much below Cecily Plantagenet's station.
Curiously, C.P. 14 makes no mention of Ralph Scrope's brief marriage
to Cecily Plantagenet under its listing of corrections and additions
for the Scrope family.
I find that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were blood related as
John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster
/
Robert Ferrers = (1) Joan Beaufort (2) = Ralph Neville
__________/ _____/
/ /
Elizabeth Ferrers Cecily Neville
=John Greystoke =Richard, Duke of York
/ /
Ralph Greystoke King Edward IV of England
= Elizabeth Fitz Hugh =Elizabeth Wydeville
/ /
Elizabeth Greystoke /
=Thomas Scrope /
/ /
Ralph Scrope married Cecily Plantagenet
The above chart shows that Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were
related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of kindred, being both descended
from Joan (or Jane) Beaufort, the legitimated daughter of John of
Gaunt. If so, a dispensation would have been required for this
marriage. I haven't yet checked for such a dispensation, and, if one
knows of its existence, I would appreciate knowing about it.
In summary, it appears that Cecily Plantagenet married sometime in
1485 to Ralph Scrope of Upsall. The marriage was evidently brief and
childless. It was dissolved sometime in 1486. Mr. Helmholz deserves
much credit for the discovery of the divorce record pertaining to this
marriage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi,
one possibility and solution is that maybe Cecily has gotten
pregnant whilst unwed hence the marriage to a lessor class of
gentleman,so the child isn't born out off wedlock.Due to his lessor
class status there is no intention by all parties for the marriage to
continue as such and would have not been consumated as such,hence very
little mention of it.Ralph Scope would have been the richer for
it,Cecily would remain Dominus and the child ??? That would be the
mystery,maybe an old family name used ??
Certainly Cecily would have become damaged goods in the marriage
market with the baby becoming extremely problamatic in the Royalty
stakes.

Hugh
Douglas Richardson
2003-10-02 20:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Jones
Hi,
one possibility and solution is that maybe Cecily has gotten
pregnant whilst unwed hence the marriage to a lessor class of
gentleman,so the child isn't born out off wedlock.Due to his lessor
class status there is no intention by all parties for the marriage to
continue as such and would have not been consumated as such,hence very
little mention of it.Ralph Scope would have been the richer for
it,Cecily would remain Dominus and the child ??? That would be the
mystery,maybe an old family name used ??
Certainly Cecily would have become damaged goods in the marriage
market with the baby becoming extremely problamatic in the Royalty
stakes.
Hugh
Dear Hugh ~

This is certainly possible. However, acccording to Vergil, the rumor
reported in 1485 to Henry Tudor (future King Henry VII) is that King
Richard III had married his niece, Cecily Plantagenet, to an obscure
man. If correct, then the marriage was presumably arranged by the
King Richard III himself.

Given that King Richard III had already pronounced his brother's
children bastards, a marriage of this nature for his "illegitimate"
niece to an untitled man would be deemed appropriate (at least by
him). Also, at this point in his reign, I believe Richard III had
designated his sister, Elizabeth's son, John de la Pole, Earl of
Lincoln, as his heir apparent, ahead of his brother, Edward's
daughters. If so, then Richard III was clearly trying to degrade his
brother's daughters both as lawful heirs to their father, King Edward
IV, as well as to himself. The marriage of Cecily Plantagenet to
Ralph Scrope would very much fit this pattern.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com
Reedpcgen
2003-10-02 21:39:29 UTC
Permalink
There was also some discussion of this in the past; see:

http://medievalbritain.cis.to/pipermail/lmb/1999-October/032581.html

http://medievalbritain.cis.to/pipermail/lmb/1999-October/032593.html

medievalbritain.cis.to/pipermail/ lmb/2000-June/042756.html

(Of course, those who use searches at Google should have been awae of this, and
included these references in the course of discussion.)

Paul
Robert Todd
2003-10-04 04:33:58 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
(Of course, those who use searches at Google should have been awae [sic] of this, and
included these references in the course of discussion.)
Paul
Ah - - Mr. Collegiality strikes again!

It should be obvious to all that Mr. Richardson's post was not
referring to Google searches, but to printed texts. Anyone with a
computer can do an on-line Google search. Mr. Richardson has made the
effort to seek out and share his findings with those who do not have
such ready access to these books.

Robert

P.S. May I suggest that if you criticize others for minor points, that
you proof read your words before you hit the send button. (Of course,
those who use computers should have been aware that there are spell
check programs available for those in a rush).
Reedpcgen
2003-10-04 04:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Todd
It should be obvious to all that Mr. Richardson's post was not
referring to Google searches, but to printed texts. Anyone with a
computer can do an on-line Google search. Mr. Richardson has made the
effort to seek out and share his findings with those who do not have
such ready access to these books.
The article I pointed out is a printed text, and thus should not have been
overlooked in this discussion (thank you for emphasizing that it should have
been included, as a printed text).

Doug has emphasized that he makes thorough use of Google searches, yet did not
mention the 1999 discussion, and even passed quickly over Alison Weir, who is
the one who pointed to Polydore Vyrgil. A proper scholar and historian will
reference all material that have been used.

Further, Doug was not certain if Ralph Scrope was a member of Richard III's
household, even though I'd already posted the URLs which stated that fact
(aside from it also being stated in CP).

Certainly a scholar who uses Google on a frequent basis and has pointed that
out should have been quickly aware of the 1999 discussion which states these
same things, and which article makes reference to the other sources Doug
mentioned in his posts.

The 1999 discussion referred an article which deals specifically with this
subject, but was not mentioned by Doug; certainly that article should be part
of this discussion, and pointed out (which would be obligatory for someone who
was being both collegial and helpful).

Thank you for your keen and constant concern with my posts,

Paul

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...