Stephen Hawes

Someone asked today if Stephen Hawes was one of Richard III"s illegitimate children, as he is listed as a brother to Richard's daughter, Katherine on a genealogical website. (This came up because apparently it has been discovered that Katherine was buried in London & may be located. People started looking her up online & came across an entry on a genealogical website that lists Stephen Hawes as her brother.) 

From personal experience, I know there are often mistakes, made honestly or due to extreme wishful thinking, on these websites. I've come across it in my own family tree. I also know that many times, family oral history is often based on truth. It may be misinterpreted, misunderstood, exaggerated, but more often than not, the truth can be found with enough persistence, research, & a heck of a lot of luck. As more sources come online, researchers today have access to more records than researchers of the past had.

Back to Stephen Hawes. At noon today, I knew absolutely nothing about this man. Within an hour, searching online, on my lunch break, I found out the following:

Stephen Hawes was born about 1474 or 1475, in Suffolk, "where the surname is common," according to wiki. He was a groom to Henry VII & during that time, was granted the right to 4 yards of black cloth for mourning when Queen Elizabeth (Richard's niece) died. He wasn't part of Henry's household when Henry died however, & it is thought he died around 1523. He was paid for a play he wrote for Henry VIII in 1521 & his will, naming Katherine his wife as his beneficiary, was probated in 1523. He was a well-known, popular poet of the day & was educated at Oxford.

As of now, the only "source" for Richard III being Stephen Hawes' father  (other than genealogical websites & God knows where they got their information from) is wiki, which states "it has been suggested" that Hawes was Richard's son.  That, in my book, is tantamount to "extreme wishful thinking" on someone's part & should remain so until a credible source can be found. This does not mean, however, that you can't go snooping around to see what you can find & then discussing it.

 However, just for even LOOKING for information about Stephen Hawes & speculating whether he had direct descendants alive today, some people got up in arms about the whole thing, calling it a fairy tale. I pointed out that three years ago, "experts" were saying we'd never find Richard III because "everyone knows" his remains were tossed in a river. That didn't stop the wet blankets, though, who proceeded to try to school me on mtDNA (when I was discussing Y DNA). 

Ahem. (glances down to first entry on this blog)

If this is what Philippa had to deal with before she finally found someone to help her find Richard, the woman deserves not just a medal, but a statue.

I'm going to keep looking into this little puzzle & will post updates if/when I find something of interest, & that is credible, to add.

Some sources (although you can Google Stephen Hawes on your own as there are way more than this):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawes

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/1511/6103022.PDF?sequence=1

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/html/1807/4350/poet150.html

Dictionary of National Biography

Hicks & Biddle need to put the shovel down

(generally the advice I give to people wanting out of the holes they've dug for themselves)

They just don't want to admit they got pantsed by amateurs on what is probably one of the greatest finds in archaeology since King Tut. This is another long read, but worth it. 

http://www.historyextra.com/news/leicester-skeleton-richard-iii%E2%80%99s-leading-archaeologist-insists

An awesome take down

Okay, this link is quite a long read, but it's worth it, I promise. 

http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/is-the-car-park-skeleton-richard-iii-of-course-not-its-a-skeleton/

My thoughts: So, complete skeleton, found where history says he was buried, plus evidence of a curved spine, plus DNA evidence = "nope, can't say it's him, too many other possibilities" but a partial pelvic bone, which may or may not be male, which has been moved around more times thanElizabeth Taylor was married, which was mixed in with remains of other persons = yup, we can say it might be him.  Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Biddle was involved in the 2nd search & not the first one, could it?

Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke

And now for my next trick.

After the excitement of discovering a family connection to the Plantagenets & Richard III, I became more interested in my direct ancestor, Ralph de Greystoke. I learned he was at Bosworth and fought for Richard III via a footnote which mentioned a folk song written about the Battle, but I have yet to find a copy of that song to read it.

I still have no clue whose ranks he was in, where he was on the battlefield, or if he brought any men with him.
I just hope to God he didn't show up with Stanley! (Boo Hiss!)

I did find his coat of arms, & that caused some minor panic because prominently displayed on them is the Red Rose of Lancaster (Boo! Hiss!).

But all is right in the state of Greystoke, for while he was initially on the Lancastrian side, he switched allegiances once Margaret of Anjou (Boo! Hiss!) sold Berwick to the Scots around 1461. He was knighted by Richard (when he was still Duke of Glouster) after serving with him in the battles with the Scots to win Berwick back to the English side.

I have found some links about him in the Court of Edward IV & will be looking at those next, as well as information about Berwick.

It's been a few days since I posted something, & I came across this on Facebook. Couldn't resist. I'm currently working on another post, which I should finish this weekend.