Children of the 10th Lord Clifford redux

In a posting dated 26 March 2006, Brad Verity wrote his hypothesis on
the children of the 10th Lord Clifford and stated that Elizabeth
Clifford, wife of Sir Ralph Bowes was illegitimate. I descend from

Brad Verity...

Yes, also that Margaret Clifford, wife of Sir Cuthbert Ratcliffe, may
have been illegitimate too.

this couple through their great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth
(Mansfield) Wilson of Boston. Others on SGM will note that this couple

Brad Verity...

Thank you for explaining this upfront.

is the direct patrilineal line of the late Queen Mother, born Lady
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and therefore ancestral to the modern British
royal family.

Brad Verity...

Not, curiously enough, through the Bowes line however, as the couple's
only son, Sir George Bowes of Streatlam Castle, died without any sons.

I was intrigued by Brad's use of the work "The Shepherd Lord of
Skipton Castle" by Dr. Richard T. Spence (1994), so I bought a copy.
It is a glossy, slim work one might buy in a gift shop. Nonetheless,
Dr. Spence is an historian, uses footnotes, and the work seems to be
reliable.

Brad Verity...

Yes, Dr. Spence wrote his doctorate thesis on the Cliffords. I believe
it is Skipton Castle that actually had the book published.

I wish Brad had cited to the works Dr. Spence used rather than to the
pages of the book. In noting Elizabeth's marriage portion he cites

Brad Verity...

I did in my follow-up post on March 27th.

to p. 33. The paragraph in question is note 46 which is: Dickens, p.
131-2 [Clifford Letters of the Sixteenth Century], Clay, p. 375

Brad Verity...

I have a copy of that vwork, and it is not the source for Elizabeth's
marriage portion, or the other two marriage portions that Spence
mentions.

[Yorkshire Archaeological Journal xviii (1905):354-411], Books of

Brad Verity...

I also have a copy of the Clay article, and same as above.

Records, II, fol. 528; J. Nicolson and R. Burn, The History and
Antiquities of the Counties of Westmorland and Cumberland, 2 vols.
(1777) I:387; Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, ed. Sir Cuthbert
Sharp (1840), p. 369. Of these sources, most are secondary and written
well past the events. The primary records seem to be the Clifford
Letters and the Books of Records.

Brad Verity...

I have not seen the above three sources.

Brad Verity...

The Clifford Letters do not mention any marriage portions.

It should be noted that Dr. Spence is an historian and not a
genealogist. This is apparent when on p. 43 he notes that the mother
of Henry VII was related to the St. Johns by their common Beauchamp
ancestry. This is true, but it belies how close the relationship was.
Anne St. John, the wife of the 10th Lord Clifford was the niece of the
half-blood of Margaret, countess of Richmond. Dr. Spence also calls
Mabel Clifford, the eldest daughter and notes that she made the best
marriage since her husband would become the Earl of Southampton in 1537
(Spence, p. 42). As Brad points out, in the genealogical chart in this

Brad Verity...

Lady Anne Clifford, writing in the following century, calls Mabel the
eldest daughter, and many subsequent works have followed suit.

work Elizabeth Clifford is given as a daughter to the 10th Lord and
Anne St. John. It is Brad's contention that this is incorrect.

Brad Verity...

It is my contention that it could be incorrect. I agree that Dr.
Spence is not clear at all on the 10th Lord's daughters. On page 27,
he states of the children of the 10th Lord and Anne St. John: "Their
second son, another Henry, born in 1493, survived as did Thomas, Mabel,
Eleanor, Anne and Joan." He doesn't cite a source for this, nor
explain where the daughters Elizabeth and Margaret came from.

One of the reasons he gives is the low marriage portion given to
Elizabeth of 600 marks. In the same paragraph of p. 33 in Spence's
work, daughter Dorothy received 100 marks, and daughter Margaret 500
pounds. Brad fails to equate marks with pounds, but Spence does on p.
16. In 1476, 80 marks was equal to 53 pounds, 6 shillings and 8 pence.
Using round numbers, 80 marks was equal to about 54 pounds and thus a
conversion of .675 works. So 600 marks is the same as 405 pounds.

Brad Verity...

Thank you for that. It helps.

Therefore, Elizabeth and Margaret got roughly the same amount at
marriage. Note also that Dorothy, the known legitimate daughter of the
10th Lord Clifford by his second wife received far less then either
other daughter.

Brad Verity...

Dorothy was married in 1528 (Spence - p. 42), five years after the 10th
Lord died in 1523. So either the 10th Lord arranged her marriage
before he died, or the Dorothy who received 100 marks for her marriage
was yet another daughter. The source that Spence got these marriage
portions from needs to be checked. I have a feeling though that it is
the unpublished Books of Records manuscripts in the Cumbria County
Records office.

Spence notes that the 10th Lord Clifford was thrifty and uses words
like parsimony to describe him. It is not unthinkable that Elizabeth
as the eldest daughter, with several more daughters to marry off, got a
smaller dowry. Add to that her marriage dates of between 1505 and 1510
which is when the 10th Lord was made to pay 2,000 pounds in a fine, and
perhaps money was a bit tight.

Brad Verity...

Yes, the above could explain a smaller dowry. It would be nice to know
what the marriage portions for Joan, Mabel and Anne were, but those may
not have survived.

As for chronology, Richard III died in August of 1485. The 10th
Lord's reemergence under the patronage of Henry VII is noted in
Spence. So, there's no reason to believe he did not marry soon
thereafter and by the end of 1485. A daughter born in 1486

Brad Verity...

I disagree here - see below.

(Elizabeth), named for the Queen as an honor, is certainly
chronologically possible. The rest of the children are born in 1487/8

Brad Verity...

Only if the Clifford marriage is pushed back.

and thereafter. Spence cites (on p. 25) a draft copy dated 10 January
1587 of the marriage settlement [note 31: Chatsworth, Londesborough
papers, PB/151065/82 and CCR 1500-1509, no. 105.] She is first called
Lady Anne in a document dated 25 July 1587. However, this settlement
may not be an accurate measure of when they married. Lord Clifford,

Brad Verity...

A settlement is made at the time of marriage. It is the guarantee to
the bride of what will be hers should she survive her husband. I don't
think that the King and his mother the Countess of Richmond would have
allowed her niece Anne to marry a year-and-a-half prior to a settlement
being made. A date of January 1487 of a draft of the settlement,
followed by a date of July 1487 for Anne to first be called Lady Anne
Clifford in a document indicates a marriage date of 1487, just as
Spence deduced.

first had to reassert his control over his lands which had been taken
by the Yorkists. After securing his possessions, the jointure to Lady
Anne is made. There's no reason to believe they were not married
earlier than 1587.

Brad Verity...

Yes, there is reason to believe they were not married earlier than
1487. Securing his lands would not have taken a year-and-a-half. The
king would send word out to the escheators of the counties that the
lands were now in possession of Lord Clifford. There is no record of
any resistance to his seisin, so we're talking weeks at the most, for
the process, not months and months.

In the final analysis, we have several sources that are contradictory.

Brad Verity...

Yes, full agreement.

In such a case, evidence should be sought that is affirmative of the
age of Elizabeth Clifford, her exact marriage date, the exact marriage
date of her parents, or some other document noting her relationship
with her mother. It seems only that the 1505 Henry VII relations

Brad Verity...

Full agreement here too. The Books of Records in the Cumbria County
record office (if that is indeed the source that records the marriage
portions) would hopefully provide the exact date of Elizabeth's
marriage. I don't know if there is any source that would give her
birthdate, or the birthdate of any of the Clifford children. Perhaps
if Household record books that survive mention them, it is possible to
deduce estimated birthdates from when they first appear in the records.

As for the marriage date of her parents, I tend to agree with Dr.
Spence that it was in early 1487, but if a more exact date can be
discovered, terrific.

pedigree fails to mention her and it stands in opposition to all other
sources. I find Mr. Verity's use of Dr. Spence's book to bolster

Brad Verity...

Yet it is a strong opposition, since it is the only source so far that
is contemporary to the lifetime of the 10th Lord, Lady Anne and
Elizabeth herself.

such an argument unpersuasive.

Brad Verity...

That's absolutely your right. Though you have provided an alternate
chronology, which includes pushing back the marriage date of Anne and
the 10th Lord (which I find unpersuasive, as it is speculation with no
documentation to back it up), you have not provided an explanation as
to why Elizabeth and Margaret were left off of an otherwise accurate
pedigree of the Clifford children.

John Brandon...

Ah, yes, that old piece of junk. I think you are relying too heavily
on this document (which is probably flawed).

royaldescent...

Why is this "old piece of junk" probably flawed? What evidence can you
provide that it is in error? Do you know of a document that names Elizabeth

John Brandon...

Documents from that time period can be notably unreliable (especially
dealing with families this far north of the center of power) ...

or Margaret as Anne St. John's daughters? If so, great, then we have a
conclusion.

Cheers, ---------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to

But thank you for taking the time to look into this question. It is an
intriguing one which I agree needs further research before any
conclusions can be reached.

Cheers, ----------Brad

John Brandon...

Yes. I see no reason she need be illegitimate --