|
In de nieuwsgroep soc.genealogy.medieval werd door Ph.J.
van Dael een vraag gesteld over de Vlaamse nazaten van de 7de graaf van
Northumberland. Daar werd door William Addams
Reitwiesner op geantwoord:
Burkes Peerage, 105th Edition, 4th Impression, states about Thomas
Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland, (born 1528 died York, 22-8-1572), that
he only had daughters.
Burke's is wrong. The 7th Earl had one and only one son. That
son was named Thomas, and he was buried at Leconfield, co. York, in 1560, when
he was less than two years old.
Recently someone told me that he also had a son, with his wife Anna
Sommerset, called Jehan. In the summer of 1570 his mother brought him to what
now is Belgium. In 1840 his direct Belgian descendant, Petrus Percy, received
acknowledgement of his nobility. Does anyone know more about it. Is it a true
story or just a farytale?
It's true that Jehan Piercy's descendant was acknowledged as noble in
Belgium in 1840, but this acknowledgement means nothing.
Jehan Piercy was no relation to the 7th or any other Earl of Northumberland.
Daarop zond de heer Belien, uit België, onderstaand artikel naar de
nieuwsgroep soc.genealogy.medieval, welke hier integraal volgt:
THE PERCY FAMILY IN FLANDERS
by Paul BelienA
spy-report sent from Paris to London in August 1585 states that Charles Neville,
the fugitive earl of Westmoreland, might, as part of a concerted Catholic
invasion of England, land in Cumberland or Lancashire, bringing with him the
son(s) of the late earl of Northumberland.
Historians suppose this "late earl" to be Henry Percy, 8th earl of
Northumberland, who in June 1585 was found dead in the Tower, where he had been
imprisoned upon suspicion of complicity in a Catholic plot, the Throckmorton
conspiracy.
Hence, the historians wonder which son(s) the spy-report refers to, as sources
indicate that all sons were in England at the time of their father's
suicide/murder.
It is known for certain that earl Henry's eldest sons were in England in June
1585, as were his three youngest sons. However, three other sons, William (b
1570), Charles (b 1572) and Richard (b 1573) had been in France in the early
1580s to complete their schooling. The brothers seem to have gone to France
sometime after Christmas 1582, but they returned before June 1585.
Mark Nicholls in his article on Sir Charles Percy (Recusant History 18
(1986-87), pp.237-250) concludes that (one of) the son(s) the spy-report refers
to, must have been Charles Percy. According to Nicholls the sources (Father
Allen and Father Persons) stating that "all the sons had been brought home
earlier and had been lost to the Roman Catholic Church were mistaken, or perhaps
the boys travelled AGAIN to France in 1585."
However, even the fact that the boys were again in France, does not explain how
they got into the company of Charles Neville, who was an exile in the Spanish
etherlands (Flanders).
Could the "son of the late earl" in the spy-report, have been a son
of earl Henry's older brother, Thomas Percy, 7th earl of Northumberland? We know
that his sixth child (b 1570) was in Flanders at the time. Was this child a son?
In November 1569, Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland, and Charles
Neville, 6th and last Earl of Westmoreland, rebelled against Queen Elizabeth.
Their aim was to reestablish the Catholic Religion. After an initial success in
which the earls took Durham, the Rising of the Earls was subdued. In December
1569, both earls fled over the border into Scotland. Westmoreland was
alone, Northumberland was ccompanied by his wife Anne, a daughter of Henry
Beaufort-Somerset, 2nd Earl of Worcester.
Northumberland was soon betrayed by his Scottish hosts and sold to the
English. He was subsequently put to trial and executed in York in August 1572.
He is considered to be a martyr by the Catholic Church and was officially
beatified in the 19th century.
In the Summer of 1570, the earl of Westmoreland, fearing that the same
betrayal might also happen to him, left Scotland for Flanders. There he would
remain in exile until his death in November 1601. He lived in great poverty and
would never see his wife (d. 1593) and four daughters again. The eldest
daughter, Margaret Neville (b. 1564), was herself tried in 1594 and sentenced to
death for having been found in the
company of a Catholic priest. She was, however, pardoned.
Anne, the Countess of Northumberland, also left Scotland and travelled to
Flanders. She had given birth to a baby in Old Aberdeen on 11 June 1570 and on
23 August boarded a ship, arriving with her baby at Bruges on 31 August 1570. In
Flanders, she was to live in various places, i.a. Malines (1572), Brussels
(1574), Liege (1575). She died at Namur on 17 October 1596.
Sir Cuthbert Sharp in his 1840 account of « The Rising in the North ; The
1569 Rebellion » mentions Thomas Percy and his wife as having one son, «
Thomas, died young (1560) », and four daughters : « Elizabeth, m. Richard
Woodroffe, of Wolley, co. York », « Lucy, m. Sir Edward Stanley, of Eynsham,
co. Oxon. », « Jane, m. Lord Henry Seymour », and « Mary, who on the
authority of a MS belonging to the English Benedictine Dames (formerly at
Bruxelles, now at Winchester) printed in the Catholic Magazine for August 1838,
was born on the 11th of June 1570. After the death of the Countess, she came
into the low countries, to take possession of what was left her by her mother,
but more by her desire to dedicate herself to the service of God, in holy
religion. She became the founder of the Benedictine Dames, at Bruxelles.
» (Sharpe, pp 349-350)
If this is true - Mary, being born on 11 June 1570 and coming to Flanders
after the death of her mother in 1596 - it means that her mother must have left
her newborn child behind in Scotland when she departed for Flanders in August
1570. However, all sources indicate that she took her child along with her.
The Earl and Countess of Northumberland in November 1569 had left a number of
their toddlers behind in their house in Topcliffe in Yorkshire. The rebellious
earls, moving in from the North had hoped to take Yorkshire very easily and the
Earl and Countess of Northumberland had planned to join their children there.
But events turned out otherwise and the rebels fled to Scotland.
The children were captured in Topcliffe by their uncle, Henry Percy, the later
8th Earl of Northumberland. To the surprise of his brother, Henry sided with
Queen Elizabeth during the rebellion and moved his soldiers against the rebels.
He was afterwards rewarded for this loyalty with his brother's earldom.
Henry Percy wrote to the Earl of Sussex on 9 January 1570 that « Passing by the
younge ladys, I founde them in harde case. They wolde gladly be removyde ». He
took them along and raised them within his own family, which soon moved to the
Percy castle at Petworth.
Edward Barrington de Fonblanque writes in his book « Annals of the House of
Percy » that four daughters survived the 7th Earl of Northumberland. Fonblanque
mentions five children (p. 125) :
- Elizabeth, the eldest (b. 1559), m. Richard Woodruffe of Wolley
- Thomas (b. 1560, d. 1560)
- Mary (b. 1563, d. 1643), founder of the Benedictine Dames at Brussels
- Lucy, m. Sir Edward Stanley of Eynsham
- Jane, the youngest daughter, m. Lord Henry Seymour
He does not mention a sixth child, born in Old Aberdeen on 11.6.1570, and
explicitly states Jane to be « the youngest daughter », while Mary,
founder of the English convent in Brussels, is the second daughter, born in
1563.
Fonblanque, who had access to the family archives of the Percies at Syon
House and Alnwick Castle, wrote his book in 1887. The genealogical annex of the
book, however, gives a totally different version than the text. Here, Mary,
second daughter, is stated to have married Sir Thomas Grey of Wark, while there
is a sixth child, a second Mary (« Maria »), born on 11.6.1570, who is said to
have been the founder of the Brussels Benedictine convent.
In 1902 Gerald Brenan published his « History of the House of Percy ».
Brenan complains that he was denied access to the Percy archives : « The
present Duke of Northumberland objected to further search among the documentary
collection of Alnwick Castle and Sion House as unnecessary » (Brenan, vol. 1,
p. XVI), causing Brenan to rely heavily on Fonblanque's Annals, « a work
prepared practically under the eye of the late Duke of Northumberland, and
largely from original sources. » (ib.)
Brenan also mentions two Marys, one married to Thomas Grey of Wark, the other
becoming a Benedictine nun in Brussels. However, he notices that something must
be wrong there and states that Fonblanque and others often confuse the first «
Mary » with the second « Maria ».
I am told that Burke in his older editions also mentions a « Mary » married
to Thomas Grey of Wark, as well as a « Maria », founder of the Brussels
convent. In later editions, however, Burke omits the first Mary (b. 1563) and
retains only the latter, which then becomes Northumberland's youngest daughter.
In September 1591, Charles Paget, an English Catholic exile in Antwerp,
writes a letter to the Percy family in London, to announce that the Countess of
Northumberland has died and that her youngest daughter Jane is urgently
requested to come to Flanders in order to collect her mother's belongings. The
Countess only died in 1596. Paget's letter is a ruse to get the youngest
daughter, Jane, over to Flanders. Brenan does not know what to make of this
letter, thinking that the
youngest daughter, Mary, is already in Flanders. He writes : « Paget appears to
have forgotten lady Maria. The latter had been her mother's companion and solace
from the time, twenty years before, when they left Old Aberdeen together. Lady
Mary had surely the best right to what little the Countess left ».
But in reality, lady Mary (b. 1563), had not left Scotland with her mother in
1570. She came to Flanders many years later, as is stated on her epitaph in
Brussels : « Hic jacet domina Maria Percy filia Thomae Percy Northumbriae
comitis, quae fidei confessione in Anglia carceribus diu toleratis in Belgio
exul hoc nobilium virginum coenibium sub regula S. Patris Benedicti, propriis
amicorumque, ejus instinctu, denariis struxit. Obiit XIII september anno MDCXLII
R.I.P. »
« Here lies lady Mary Percy, daughter of Thomas Percy, Earl of
Northumberland. Because of her faith she suffered imprisonment in England for a
long time and came as an exile to the Netherlands where she founded this convent
for noble women under the rule of St. Benedict, which convent was founded on her
initiative and with her money and that of her friends. She died 13.9.1642. May
she rest in peace. »
According to some sources, she was 80 years old when she died, which is
correct if she was born in 1562-63. The « long imprisonment in England » which
the epitaph mentions (« in Anglia carceribus diu toleratis »), probably refers
to the unhappy period of her life that she lived in her uncle's household in
Petworth.
After her mother's death, Mary Percy in 1599 founded the English Benedictine
convent in Brussels. She was chosen as abbess of the convent and never returned
to England. In « Gallia Christiana », vol. V, pp. 59-60, we read : « Haec
abbatia ord. S. Benedicti initia sua debet nobili domicellae Mariae Percy filiae
Thomae comitis de Northumberland in Anglia Martyrio coronati, quae cum ob fidem
catholicam e domo paterna fugisset. » :
« This abbey of St. Benedict was founded by lady Mary Percy, daughter of
Thomas, Earl of Northumberland, who died in England as a martyr. She fled her
paternal home because of her Catholic faith. »
Here again, we have to conclude that Mary (Maria) Percy, founder of the
English Benedictine Dames at Brussels, was raised in her uncle's household at
her father's house in Petworth, and that she can not have been the child born on
11.6.1570 in Old Aberdeen.
As far as I know, there are no documents (unless maybe in the Percy family
archives in Alnwick or Sion House ?) stating who this mysterious child is. When
the child was baptised, its sex was not mentioned on the certificate. This could
have been done on purpose, which makes sense if the baby was a boy and an heir
to the 7th Earl of Northumberland. That would also explain why the Countess of
Northumberland felt unsafe in Scotland and almost immediately after its birth
left for Flanders. It also explains why in 1902 the Duke of Northumberland was
reluctant to open the Percy family archives to Brenan when he wanted to
investigate the confusion surrounding the two Marys, and why Fonblanque, being
under scrutiny of the Duke of Northumberland in 1887 inserts a genealogical
annex to his book that is totally different from his book's account.
On 13 August 1620, a certain John Percy receives an official recognition of
his nobility from the Spanish authorities in Brussels. He claims to be
« fils de Jean Piercy, d'extraction angloise, et de Judoca Reygers »:
« son of John Percy, of English origin, and Judoca Reygers ».
An abbreviated copy from ca 1675 of this document can be found in the Royal
Library in Brussels. The original was lost in 1695 in the great fire of
Brussels, when the French army bombarded the town and the whole city center was
demolished.
According to his descendants, this Jean (John) Piercy, who married Judoca
Reygers, was the son of Thomas Percy and came with his mother to Flanders. He
married a daughter of the wealthy Reygers family. It was the same Brussels
family that financially helped to sponsor the English Benedictine convent,
founded by Mary Percy. One of the patrons of the convent was lady Agatha
Reygers.
Around 1670, one of the grandsons of Percy-Reygers, Don Carlos Piercy, a
knight in the service of the Spanish King, left for England to defend his
family's claim to the earldom of Northumberland, but he failed in his duties. In
his book « Armorial General de la Noblesse Belge » Baron de Rijckman de Betz
writes : « Charles Percy fut envoye en Angleterre, vers 1670, pour veiller aux
droits de sa famille et negligea tout, sauf de dissiper en folles depenses les
sommes dont-on l'avait muni. »
Today, members of the Percy (or « Persy ») family still live in the Aarschot
region, between Malines, Louvain and Brussels. They are lower middle class
people, but claim to be direct descendants in the male line of the great Harry
Hotspur and of the Blessed Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland.
Ph.J. van Dael zond
vervolgens het volgende bericht naar soc.genealogy.medieval, waarop William
Addams Reitwiesner reageerde:
Nevertheless the remarks of William Addams Reitwiesner the Van
Brusselen-family claim to be descendants form Charlemagne through the Flemish
Percy-family.
Yep. And if the connection works, then they'd also be cousins of mine.
And more to the point, what is William Addams Reitwiesner reaction
to >Paul Belien's interesting article 'THE PERCY FAMILY IN FLANDERS',
>earlier in this newgroup?
My opinion is that it is a collection of guesswork and wishful thinking.
Somebody reeeeeeally wants the connection to work, and so is trying hard, too
hard, to fit things together. In the words of someone who was describing a
certain American city, "there's no there there".
Tot zover meneer Reitwiesner. Ook reageerde José
Verheecke die weliswaar meer in de lijn licht van de heer Reitwiesner, maar
wel een literatuurlijstje gaf:
This particular descent has been published a few times in Belgian
genealogical literature,e.g
- L.Patteet:"Afstammelingen van karel de grote in het oude land van
Aarschot"(in:"Het Oude Land van Aarschot"1971,#1)
- id."De familie Percy te Aarschot"(Aarschot,sd[1979],425pp)
- F.Camerlincx"Rond de eerste Belgische Percy's"(in:"Het oude
Land van Aarschot" VIII[1973],#1)
- Freddy Verdoodt"Afstammelingen uit het hetogelijk huis van
Brabant"(1988),137-139.
If the seventh earl of Northumberland really had a son John=Jan,who went to
Flanders,and became ancestor of the Belgian Percy's,then there would be at least
SOME trace of this Jan in English sources!
I don't believe in this claim,nor do I believe similar claims of other
families(e.g.the family Percin de Montgaillard,in Guyenne[France]-cf.La
Chesnaie-desbois"Dict.de la noblesse"XVI.634,and the Percin/Persin,aka
Percin de Northumberland[what a hint!],cf.Héraldique et Généalogie(1978)
331-332,(1979)39-40,(1982)397-398 &(1988)293-295
Als laatste in de soc.genealogy.medieval reageerde de heer Leo
van de Pas met daarin veel aanvullende informatie:
A few days I spotted a message containing parts of emails sent by Ph. van
Dael and Paul Belien. I posted my observations to gen-medieval but it did not
appear.
Then Done Stone sent me a message that it had not appeared perhaps because of
the cc to Paul Belien. Since then I have sent it twice more and it still has not
appeared. Sadly Paul Belien already has replied to it.
As also a query has emerged about descendants of the 7th Earl, I will try, by
making a new e-mail, to send the basics of my response. Sadly, to copy all the
original parts would be too cumbersome.
Ph. J van Dael (leefdael@gironet.nl) made the following statement:
Burkes Peerage states about Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland
(born 1528, died York 22-8-1572) that he only had daughters.
Burke's is wrong.
To this I replied (wrongly) to Paul Belien, it should have been to Mr.van
Dael:
Dear Paul Belien,
Which edition of Burke's is referred to? In front of me I have the
following editions :
In the 1925 edition, page 1712, clearly states he had : Thomas, who died
young in 1560.
In the 1938 edition, page 1876, clearly states he had : Thomas, who died
young in 1560.
In the 1967 edition, page 1877, states : and had issue, with a son died
young.
How many more observations are 'wonky'?
Then it was said : The 7th Earl had only one son. To which I replied : To be
pedantic (and precise) he was the 1st Earl of Northumberland of the 1 May 1557
creation. (Complete Peerage, Volume IX, page 728)
Then it was said : Recently someone told me that he also had a son. And here
is referred to a child born after Thomas had died, and this child's existance
had been, supposedly, kept secret.
I do not understand the reason for keeping his existance so thoroughly
secret. There has been "the Shepherd Lord", 10th Lord Clifford, whose
existance had been hidden after the Lancastrian defeat, but then was later
accepted as the rightful Lord Clifford---why not with this hidden son?
In 1670 when a descendant went to England but failed to reclaim the title
there was a throoughly pro-catholic king in England---Charles II.
By the attainder of the 7th Earl, the Barony of Poynings and the Earldom of
Northumberland (1416 creation of which he was 'de jure Earl') became forfeited,
and have ever since so continued; but the Statute "De Donis" (1285)
was held to protect the honours conferred on him in 1557 by the special
remainder in their creation, and accordingly devolved on his brother. Any right
as "heir general" to the forfeited disnities created in 1337 and 1416
(subject to the attainder of 1571), and to the ancient Barony (1299) of Percy
(subject to the attainder of 1406), devolved on his daughters and coheirs, and
now vests in the descendants of the two who alone left issue. (The Complete
Peerage Volume IX, footnote pages 729, 730)
If there are still "legitimate" descendants in Belgium, they have
more rights to those Baronies then the daughters.
The creation of Earl of Northumberland on 1 May 1557 was "with
remainder, failing heirs male of his body, to his brother, Henry Percy."
The 7th Earl was executed on 22 August 1572 and immediately the brother, Henry
Percy, was recognised as the next Earl. If there had been a son of the 7th Earl,
surely his brother and others would have known?
Then there was a reference to the wife of the 7th Earl, Anna Sommerset, and
their hidden son Jehan.
The name of the wife is misspelled, Lady Anne Somerset. She died of smallpox,
about 8 September 1591 in Namur (The Complete Peerage, Volume IX, page 729)
according to a footnote, she was one of the main stirrers in the uprising and
fled to Flanders in August 1570.
Then there was a reference to a direct descendant, Petrus Percy, who in 1840
received acknowledgement of nobility. To this William Addams Reitwiesner
responded that this acknowledgement meant nothing as the ancestor, Johan Piercy,
had no link with any Earl of Northumberland.
Then there was a remark about a spy-report (August 1585) about son(s) of the
'late Earl of Northumberland' returning to England.
To this I replied that "son(s)" could also have meant illegitimate
sons.
Then : "We know that this sixth child (b.1570) was in Flanders at the
time. Was this child a son?"
To this I replied : What we 'know' is that he (7th Earl) had one son, already
deceased, and four daughters. We hear about speculation of a sixth child, and,
again, it is is a son of the 7th Earl, it also could be illegitimate. This sixt
child is still only speculation.
Jehan Percy? Is this a Flemish form of John? In the family of the Earls of
Northumberland, the name John was rather rare, Henry and Thomas were the main
first names. I found one John who lived from 1270 till about 1293, and two Johns
(about 1418), who died in infancy, both sons of the 2nd Earl of Northumberland.
In Lady Anne Somerset's family the names were Henry and Charles. This makes
Jehan a very odd choice, also taking into account that this baby, reputedly, was
born in Scotland. What is the primary source that Lady Anne gave birth in
"Old Aberdeen" on 11 June 1570?
Her husband was then still in Scotland, he did not leave until 29 May 1572.
There is no date as to when the Laird of Ormiston got control over the person of
the 7th Earl, but on 25 December 1570 the Laird of Ormiston handed him over to
the Regent Moray, and on 29 May 1572 he was handed over to England (Complete
Peerage Volume IX, page 729).
It seems the 7th Earl was with his wife when the supposed baby was born.
Would it not have been more 'appropriate' had the baby been named after the
father and so many earlier Earls of Northumberland?
On top of this, there are records (in the old message) that on 11 June 1570 a
daughter, Mary, was born.........(twins?)
Also in the old message it was stated that the 7th Earl's brother "had
been rewarded for his loyalty with his brother's earldom". I doubt this, in
the Complete Peerage it is recorded why Henry became the 8th Earl, I don't see
this as a rewarding.
Also in the old message, are remarks (Fonblanque in 1887) advocates that
there were two Mary's, something that happedned in those days quite regularly,
one Mary married Sir Thomas Grey and the second, born 11 June 1570, who became
the founder of a convent in Brussels.
Then there seems to be a contradiction. "But in reality, Lady Mary
(b.1563), had not left Scotland with her mother in 1570. She came to Flanders
many years later, as is stated on her epitaph in Brussels. "Here lies lady
Mary Percy,--- snip---Because of her faith she suffered imprisonment in England
for a long time...." If she had not left Scotland for Flanders, this
remark does not imly she went to England. The other children were collected by
"Uncle Henry" or as described "The children were captured in
Topcliffe by their Uncle...."
Topcliffe is just north of York in England---but Mary was in Scotland?
How unhappy (see old message) could her life have been, had seh been with her
uncle? Her sisters married after having been brought up by their uncle.
Then the quoted sentence (Gallia Christiana Vol V pp 59-60) is wrong.
"She fled her paternal home because of her Catholic faith." If she was
with her uncle, then it should not be referred to as "her paternal
home", her father had been dead for a considerable while and her mother had
been on the continent.
I don't see "also explains why in 1902 the Duke of Northumberland was
reluctant to open the Percy archives etc" What 'skeleton in the cupboard'
represent these two Mary's? He was Duke of Northumberland by a much later
creation, the first Duke, originally, wanted to be Duke of Brabant but that was
disallowed.
As far as descendants is concerned, my collection is not complete!
Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland born 1528, beheaded 22 August 1572
York married 12 June 1558 Lady Anne Somerset, daughter of Henry Somerset, 2nd
Earl of Worcester and Elizabeth Browne died circa 8 September 1591 Namur
children
1.Thomas, Lord Percy died 1560
2.Lady Elizabeth Percy, married Richard Woodruffe
3.Lady Lucy Percy, see below
4.Lady Joan Percy,married Lord Henry Seymour, son of Edward Seymour, 1st
Duke of Somerset, and Anne Stanhope.Childless
5.Lady Mary Percy
Lady Lucy Percy married Sir Edward Stanley, of Tong Castle, son of Sir Thomas
Stanley, of Winwick, and Margaret Vernon children :
1.Venetia Stanley
married Sir Kenelm Digby "the ornament of England"
born 1603 Gotehurst, Bucks, died 11 June 1665
child :
a.John Digby
died 1673
married (1) Lady Catherine Howard, daughter of
Henry Frederick
Howard, Earl of Arundel, Surrey and Norfolk, and
Lady Elizabeth Stuart
married (2) Margaret Longueville
descendants
2.Frances Stanley
married Sir John Fortescue, of Salden, Baronet
children
a.Sir John Fortescue, 2nd Baronet
born 1614, died 1683
married (1) Hon Margaret Arundel
married (2) Mary Stonor
descendants
b.Sir Edward Fortescue
died 1662
Sources
Burke's Peerage
The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal
The Mortimer-Percy Volume
London, 1911
by the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval
Hope this helps and someone comes with more information.
Leo van de Pas
To be continued.......? Yes, Mr. Paul Belien
answered: For those who are interested, here is some excerpts of my
emails to Leo van de Pas regarding the children of the 7th earl of
Northumberland.
Paul Belien
English genealogists (Burke, Collins, etc.), as well as Schwennicke, are
wrong when they state that Thomas Percy, 7th earl of Northumberland, (+1572) and
his wife Anne Somerset (+1596), had only five children. Apart from their eldest
son, Thomas, who died as a baby in 1560, there were four daughters (Elizabeth,
Mary, Lucy, Jane) born before the 1569 rebellion of the earl, and a sixth child
born in Aberdeen on 11 June 1570.
On page 125 of Edward Barrington de Fonblanque's « Annals of the House of Percy
» (published in 1887 and based on the Percy family archives at Alnwick and Syon
House), we read that the first five children were:
1. Elizabeth (b. 1559), m. Richard Woodruffe of Wolley
2. Thomas (b. 1560, d. 1560)
3. Mary (b. 1563, d. 1643), founder of the Benedictine Dames at Brussels
4. Lucy, m. Sir Edward Stanley of Eynsham
5 . Jane, the youngest daughter, m. Lord Henry Seymour.
We know for certain that when the earl and the countess fled to Scotland in
the Autumn of 1569, they left four children behind in Topcliffe, because Henry
Percy (brother of the earl) wrote a letter to Lord Cecil on 7 June 1570. In this
letter he enclosed a copy of a letter he had previously written to his brother
Thomas. The latter consists of the most bitter reproaches and insults and
concludes with a description of the condition in which he (Henry) had found four
of Thomas's children at Topcliffe that previous Winter: "In what case ye
have left your iiij children. I may tearme them the young beggars, for so had
they bene had nott the prynces liberality byne more then the goodnes of their
friendes". The letter is quoted in Sir Cuthbert Sharp's "Rising in the
North; The 1569 Rebellion" (p. 355).
Henry Percy was not a pleasant man. He wanted to possess his brother's
earldom of Northumberland. According to a letter of Cecil to the Earl of
Shrewsbury in October 1571, Henry Percy stated explicitely that he had to become
earl after his brother's death. He threatened that if he could not get the
earldom, he was going to follow his brother's example and take the side of Mary
Queen of Scots against the English Queen Elizabeth. Cecil writes that Henry
Percy told the bishop of Ross that "He had a sute at this parliament, to be
enheritour to his brother; and if that toke not effect, he wold do the best he
could for the deliverie of the Scots Quene; but if it did, he wold not
medle." Thomas was executed in York on 22 August 1572. There are various
accounts of his execution and of his last words. He declared that England was in
a state of schism and that he was a Roman Catholic loyal to the Pope. He called
himself "simple Tom" and his brother "cruel Henry".
According to a letter written on the spot by Sir Thomas Gargrave to Lord
Burghley, the earl said: "Symple Tome must dye to sett up crewell
Henry".
At the moment of the execution of the earl, his countess was an exile in the
Spanish Netherlands (Flanders). Three weeks after the birth of her sixth child
in Aberdeen on 11 June 1570, she had left Scotland where here husband had been
imprisoned. She took her child with her. Its name and sex are unknown. It was
either a fifth daughter or a second son. Regarding the sex of the sixth and
youngest child of Thomas Percy, research would have to be done in archives in
Brussels. When the countess of Northumberland was in exile in the Spanish
Netherlands, she wrote numerous letters to the Spanish authorities. Some of
these letters still exist. They are kept in the "Archives des
Pays-Bas" in Brussels. As a result of these letters, the Spanish
authorities gave the countess a (small) allowance for herself and her household.
Apparently, she had come from Scotland to Flanders with a group of people,
including her newborn baby, and a priest, a certain William (Guillelmus) Percy,
who later became a canon in Veurne (in West-Flanders) and who died in this
Flemish town.
The letters of the countess to the Spanish authorities might reveal the identity
and sex of her child. It could have been a girl. It could have died young. I
would like to know what became of it. If it was a girl, did she marry and have
children?
And, yes, it could also have been a boy. "Cruel Henry" wanted the
earldom of his brother, even if the brother had a male heir. Because of his
treason, his brother lost his earldom and it also would be lost to a son. Queen
Elizabeth had promised during the 1569 rebellion to Henry Percy that if he
remained loyal, he would inherit the earldom. The Queen wrote him that she
approved of his constancy and forwardness, "although the same be against
your brother of Northumberland;" and assured him, that she "will have
regard to have the continuance of such a house, in the parson and blood of so
faithfull a servant, as we trust to find you." Maybe "Simple Tom"
knew this, maybe he knew his earldom was lost to him as well as to his son.
You will object that the Queen could have created a new earldom of
Northumberland for Henry Percy. But if she did not know about the birth of a son
to the 7th earl, she did not see the need to do so. And if she did not know, it
was not in the interest of Henry Percy to inform her, for he fell under
suspicion of being disloyal soon afterwards and was committed to the Tower.
Henry was already in the Tower at the time his brother was beheaded (22
August 1572) for his name appears on a list of prisoners on 14 July 1572 and he
remained there untill 12 July 1573 when "at the humble suit of his wife,
being with child, her Majesty, for more ease, permits him to come to London; and
that he should not departe above one or two miles from thence, till her Highness
pleasure were known." (Note that the conception of the child took place in
the Tower!)
As I mentioned in an earlier posting to soc.genealogy-medieval the Flemish
Percys claim to descend from a certain « Jehan » (John) Percy. They say that
this John Percy is the second son of Thomas, 7th earl of Northumberland. They
refer to a document from 1620 mentioning their "noble English
descent". They moved in circles of exiled English families in Flanders:
Some of the Flemish Percys married with girls from these families (e.g. the
"Pipe of Spernore" family). But, as you say, their descent « could be
illegitimate ». We know there was a John Percy, born ca 1459, a bastard of
Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont. He fled to the Netherlands in 1589 after a Yorkist
revolt (in which his cousin, Henry Percy, 4th earl, was killed). He is a likely
candidate to have left descendents in Flanders. It is true that the name John
was not common in the Percy family. But was it uncommon in the Somerset family ?
Anne Somerset, countess of Northumberland, was the granddaughter of Lucy
Neville, daughter of John Neville (who also happened to be earl of
Northumberland for a while) and the Somerset family descends from John of Gaunt.
Why did she not call her second son « Thomas » or « Henry » ? She had
already had a son named Thomas and for that reason might not have wanted to use
this name again. And she disliked her brother-in-law Henry Percy (« Cruel Henry
») who did not take the side of the 1569 uprising. I am aware that this is
"speculation", but I would like to find out the
identity of the mysterious sixth child, born in Aberdeen on 11 June 1570. It was
definitely not Mary Percy who founded the English benedictine abbey in Brussels.
I have no reason to doubt the statements on Mary Percy's epitaph in Brussels.
"Here lies Lady Mary Percy ("domina Maria Percy" in Latin)....
Because of her faith she suffered imprisonment in England for a long
time...." If she suffered
imprisonment in England, she could not have been the child which Anne Somerset
had taken to Flanders in 1570. And there is also Gallia Christiana Vol V (pp
59-60) stating that "she fled her paternal home because of her Catholic
faith." If she was with her uncle, then his house (in Petworth, Alnwick,
Topcliffe,…) would also have been 'her paternal home': her father had
previously owned these castles. She might have looked on her uncle as an usurper
who lived in "her paternal home".
Finally, British genealogists (and Schwennicke) are wrong too when they state
that Anne, Countess of Northumberland, died in 1591. I found at least four
sources claiming that she died at Namur in the Spanish Netherlands on 17 October
1596 : Felix Victor Goethals, "Dictionnaire généalogique et héraldique
des familles nobles du Royaume de Belgique", 1852; Baron de Ryckman de
Betz, "Armorial Général de la Noblesse Belge"; Bede Camm,
"Lives of the English Martyrs declared blessed in 1886 and 1895",
1914; Sir Cuthbert Sharp, "The Rising in the North; The 1569
Rebellion", 1840).
These sources are based on the registration of her death in the Southern
Netherlands. I think they are correct. The suggestion that the Countess died in
1591 comes from a letter which the English Catholic exile Charles Paget wrote to
London from Antwerp at the end of September 1591. The letter was a ruse to get
Jane Percy, Anne Somerset's "youngest" daughter, over to Flanders.
|
