I was surprised to see that although Wikipedia has an entry on John, Richard IIIâs illegitimate son, there was no entry for his illegitimate daughter, Katherine Plantagenet. This may be because while little is known about John, even less is known about Katherine.
To start with, we do not know when John or Katherine were born or the identity of their mothers. It is often confidently asserted by admirers of Richard III that the children were born before his marriage, and while it seems likelier than not that Katherine at least was the product of his bachelor days, it is impossible to say this with certainty. We do not even know whether the children had the same mother.
Historian Rosemary Horrox, however, has identified a possible candidate as Katherineâs mother: Katherine Haute, who received an annuity of five pounds from Richardâs estates in East Anglia. Horrox suggests that Katherine was the wife of James Haute, a kinsman of Elizabeth Woodville. Had young Richard, Duke of Gloucester, wishing to make honorable provision for a former mistress, sought the queenâs help in arranging a suitable match for her? If soâand this is, of course, no more than speculationâit is yet another factor undermining the claim that the relationship between Richard and the queen was hostile before 1483.
Nothing is known about Katherine Plantagenetâs early years, or where she spent them. She is not named in the records of Richardâs coronation as one of the ladies receiving robes for the occasion. Richardâs seizure of the throne in 1483, however, wrought a vast change in Katherineâs own fortunes: the following year, she married an earl.
William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon, born in 1455, was the heir of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who had been captured at the battle of Edgecote and executed on the orders of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, in 1469. Whereas Pembroke had been a powerful and valued supporter of Edward IV, gaining his earldom (and Warwick’s enmity) as a result, the younger William Herbert had enjoyed little royal favor once he reached his majority. D. H. Thomas has suggested that William was inept or, more kindly, that William was dogged by ill health. Indeed, as early as 1483, when he was only about twenty-eight, he made his will.
Herbert had no reason to regret the passing of Edward IV. Although his first wife, Mary, had been a younger sister of Elizabeth Woodville, she had died several years before, so any benefit from the connection had died with her. Indeed, for the benefit of Edward IVâs heir, Prince Edward, Herbert had been forced in 1479 to exchange his earldom of Pembroke for the less valuable earldom of Huntingdon. From the start, then, he was a natural ally of Richard III, whose coronation he attended, bearing Queen Anneâs scepter. He may have served as chamberlain to Richardâs only legitimate son, Edward.
On February 29, 1484, Richard III and William Herbert entered into an indenture arranging the marriage of William to Katherine Plantagenet. The indenture, transcribed by D. H. Thomas, reads,
This indenture made at London the last day of February in the first year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Richard the Third, between our said sovereign lord King Richard the Third on the one party, and the right noble lord William, earl of Huntingdon, on the other party, witnesseth that the said earl promiseth and granteth to and with our said sovereign lord the king that, before the feast of St. Michael  next coming [September 29, 1484], by Godâs grace he shall take to wife Dame Katherine Plantagenet, daughter to our said sovereign lord; and before their marriage to make or cause to be made to her behalf a sure, sufficient, and lawful estate of certain his manors, lordships, lands and tenements in England to the yearly value of two hundred pounds over all charges, to have and to hold to him and to the said Dame Katherine and the heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten in manner and form following: [that] is to wit, remainder to the right heirs of the said earl. For the which our said sovereign lord the king granteth to the said earl and to the said Dame Katherine to make or cause to be made before the said day of marriage a sure, sufficient, and lawful estate of manors, lordship, lands, and tenements in possession to the yearly value of one thousand marks over all reprise, to have to them and to their heirs males of their two bodies lawfully begotten: that is to say, lordships, manors, lands, and tenements in possession at that day to the yearly value of six hundred marks, and manors, lordships, lands, and tenements in reversion after the death of Thomas Stanley, knight, Lord Stanley, to the yearly value of four hundred marks. And in the mean our said sovereign lord granteth to the said earl and Dame Katherine an annuity of four hundred marks yearly to be had and perceived to them from Michaelmas last, during the life of the said Lord Stanley, of the revenues of the lordships of Newport, Brecknock, and Hay in Wales by the hands of the receivers of them for the time being. And over this our said sovereign lord granteth to make and bear the cost of the said marriage at the day of the solemnization thereof. In witness whereof our said sovereign lord to that one part of these indentures remaining with the said earl hath set his signet, and to that other part remaining with our said sovereign lord the said earl hath set his seal the day and year abovesaid.
Richard III duly granted William and Katherine (referred to as âDame Katharine Plantagenetâ) the annuity of 400 marks from the lordships of Newport, Brecknok, and Hay on March 3, 1484. The next grant, in May 1484, speaks of Katherine as Williamâs wife. Another grant followed on March 8, 1485.
These bare financial records are all that we know of Katherineâs life during her fatherâs brief reign. Whether she was old enough to consummate her marriage, whether she was happy in it, and whether she was close to her father are matters that can be only guessed at. Probably she would have spent much of her married life at Raglan Castle, the Herbert family seat in Monmouthshire.
In 1485, William Herbert played no part in impeding Henry Tudorâs march through Wales, nor is he recorded as having fought for his father-in-law at Bosworth. It may be, as D. H. Thomas suggests, that he simply had no military capacity; alternatively, Thomas suggests, Herbert might have been reluctant to move against Henry, who as his fatherâs ward had spent some time in the Herbert household as a youth. There was also the possibility that Henry would have married Williamâs sister if he had been unable to marry his first choice of bride, Elizabeth of York. If William did nothing to hinder Henry Tudor, he seems to have done nothing to help him either, for William himself did not receive a pardon until September 22, 1486.
Until recently, the Wikipedia article on Richard III claimed that following the battle of Stoke in June 1487, Katherine was âalmost certainly arrested at Raglan Castle.â The Wikipedia editor gave no supporting evidence for this assertion, nor have I found any. Indeed, there is no evidence that either the earl or the countess was involved in the rebellion or that they were out of favor with the king at this point.
William Herbert attended Queen Elizabethâs coronation in November 1487. The herald who recorded the event noted that âat that time the substance of all the earls of the realm were widowers or bachelors,â and named William, Earl of Huntingdon, as one of the widowers. When Katherine had slipped out of the world is unknown, as is so much else about her. It has been speculated that she died in childbirth, but if she did bear her husband any children, none survived the earl, who himself died in the summer of 1490 âin ye flower of his age.â
ETA: Erika Millen on Facebook pointed out that Horrox suggests in her Oxford Dictionary of English Biography entry on Richard that rather than Katherine dying, Herbert might have repudiated his marriage after Henry VII came to power. In that case, the “widower” would refer to Huntington’s first marriage, to Mary Woodville.
Sources:
Calendar of Patent Rolls
Emma Cavell, ed., The Heraldsâ Memoir 1486-1490.
Peter Hammond, âThe Illegitimate Children of Richard III,â in J. Petre, ed., Richard III: Crown and People.
Michael Hicks, Anne Neville.
Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service
Rosemary Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian Manuscript 433.
D. H. Thomas, âThe Herberts of Raglan as Supporters of the House of York,â Ph.D. dissertation, 1967.
Nice to know a little bit about Katherine. Very nice post, Susan.
Thanks, Karen!
Fascinating, as always. Thanks! I recently read a book about this woman–I think it was by Philippa Gregory but I can’t remember the title. Hope you are doing well!
Thanks, Anne! I think the book you read was Alison Weir’s A Dangerous Inheritance. We need to get together one day!
Fascinating article.
Thanks, Esther!
Did I read this correctly? Was Richard settling income and property on his daughter and her husband from Lord Stanley’s estate? The same Lord Stanley who betrayed him at Bosworth? If so, he had a real talent for making enemies! Unless there was some kind of cooperation with it on Stanley’s part for some reason, it’s no wonder Stanley didn’t support him!
Yup, that’s the one! I think (I’d have to look it up) that these were from Margaret Beaufort’s seized estates.
I think they were Buckingham’s estates? Brecknock (now Brecon) certainly was (Kendall, passim & Wikipedia entry for Duke Edward who was born at Brecon castle). Stanley had perhaps been given a life interest in some of these lands, hence Katherine and Herbert could only draw an income from them during his lifetime.
Yes, that makes sense.
Thank you Susan for the interesting history lesson. I always enjoy your very knowledgeable blog!
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Interesting — I’d heard of her but it had never occurred to me that she may have been repudiated rather than simply died; of course, the first possibility would be much more attractive to a novelist :). Considering how Grace Plantagenet seems have vanished from the records, it’s possible that Katherine may have pulled a similar disappearing act. Unless, of course, Grace herself also died young.
I’m more inclined to think she died–I think a repudiation would have left a trace in the records, and that if Herbert had taken the trouble to end the marriage, he would have looked for another bride. Otherwise, what was the point unless he simply disliked her?
Pingback: History A’la Carte 4-18-13 | Maria Grace
Fascinating stuff – I’ve been to Raglan Castle. Had no idea of Katherine’s connection. I would agree that after Henry VII’s victory, the marriage was dissolved and maybe Katherine entered a convent.
It’s certainly a possibility!
I think the “information” that Katherine was arrested at Raglan Castle may have come from Alison Weir’s A Dangerous Inheritance. If the Wiki entry has been corrected, that is good. Since Herbert was interred at Tintern Abbey, I wonder if Katherine may also have been laid to rest there. May be an interesting research project (and no, I’m not advocating we dig her up). đ
According to her author’s note, Weir got the story of her being arrested from the Wikipedia entry, but she couldn’t find any evidence supporting the claim. So the story seems to predate the novel.
In his will, Herbert asked to be laid beside his first wife, but he wasn’t married yet to Katherine when he wrote that will. I don’t think a later will has survived.
Thanks – the mystery of ‘the Raglan arrest’ continues! It’s not clear to me if Tintern Abbey was a traditional burial place for the Herberts. As Katherine pre-deceased her husband, it’s certainly possible he was not buried beside or near her, but she still may have been interred there. I’ll do more research and see if I come up with anything (a long-shot, I know, but I like a challenge!)
Do you know if there is any decendents left today from Richard iii? From Katherine maybe or from his other illegitimate son John?
None documented. I suppose it’s possible that his son John fathered a child, but if he did, there’s no trace of his or her existence that I know of.
Hi, thanks for a very interesting blog about Katherine Plantagenet. I’ve recently found my genealogy connection is directly descended from George Duke of Clarence (King Richard III’s Brother) in the Plantagenet Roll 1908 – then line continued through Sir Richard Pole (married to Margaret Plantagenet ‘the last of the plantagenets) – then Lord Henry Montagu – then down through the male line of the Barrington Family then marriage into the Worthy family, and then Harris line (My Great Grandfather) I was going to ask the same question as Sandy C if there are descendants of King Richard III or if anyone knows if Katherine Plantagenet married … had children or if there was any traceable line. thanks for the
Great blog Susan as always
Thanks!
Odd that an English family would change thier ancient name simply for a marriage in 1492 (one year after the death of William Herbert) to this woman Katherine Ashby.
A very possible explanation for Katherine Plantagenet’s dissapearance.
From the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy
GRANT OF ARMS IN 1499, AND OF A CREST IN 1565, TO FILE FAMILY OF SMITH, alias HERIZ, OF THE COUNTY OF LEICESTER,
The family of Smith, to which these documents relate, it a subsequent period made pretensions to very high and illustrious descent, which is thus proudly set forth in the epitaph of Sir Roger Smith, in the church of Edmoudthorpe in Leicestershire:
âHere lieth the grave and religious Sir Roger Smith, knight, Lord of this Manor, and formerly one of the Justices of this County whose worthy parts are adorned with the worth of his descent; whose great-grandfather William Smith, alias Herez, descended of the ancient family of Herez of Wiverton in the county of Nottingham, is by females passinge throw the names of Ashbv, Burdet, Zouch, and Conan Duke of Brittaine. descended from Henry the First, Kinge of England. He dyed Anno Doinini l655, aged eighty-fower yeares.â
It is the same âgreate-grandfatherâ who in the following document appears in the reign of Henry the Seventh as plain âWilliam Hares, otherwyse called Smyth, of the countie of Loicester, gentilman,â and actually in want of a coat of arms, How shall we reconcile so unex-pected a fact?
In an account of the family (written during the last century by Thomas Lord Dacre, and printed in the History of Leicestershire, ii. 182), we find an explanation suggested for this anomaly in a âtraditionâ
Nicholsâs history of Leicesterhire, vol. ii, p. 180.
DESCENT OF THE FAMILY OF SMITH
which stated that William Heriz assumed the name and arms of Smith, in consideration of the manor of Withcock, in the county of Leicester, which was bequeathed to him on that condition by some relation of that name. âbâ He still, however, (it is added,) as did all his posterity bore the arms of Heriz in the second quarter.â
But neither of the assertions thus made are confirmed by more authentic records. it appears that âWilliam Hares alias Smithâ obtained his footing at Withcote by his marriage with one Katharine Ashby.
Withcote was long since divided into two manors one of which called Ashbyes manor, having continued for several generations in that family, was, S Hen. VII. [1492] given by William Ashby of Loseby, esq. to William Smith, alias Heriz, with Katharine Ashby (his daughter) in marriage. The other (formerly called the Kingâs manor) was in 1462 granted by king Henry IV. to John de Daunton for his life, and was purchased by the before-mentioned William Smith, alias Heriz,âa younger branch (adds the writer) of the antient family of Heriz of Wiverton, co. Nottingham, as appears by a genealogy extracted from an antient vellum roll in colours, and proved by antient evidence.â âcâ
It will he observed that it was through this marriage with Ashby, and not from any earlier alliance, that the Smiths descended from Burdet, Zouch, and the Dukes of Bretagne.
It further appears that William Smith gentleman, as lord of Withcote, presented to the rectory there in 1495 This was three years after his marriage, and four years before he received the following grant of arms. He commenced the rebuilding of the church of Withcote, and it was finished by Roger Ratcliffe esquire, who married his widow. The arms of Smith are cut in stone on the south door of the church, but they do not quarter Heriz âdâ Nor was any coat quartered for Heriz on the monument at Withcote of John Smith esquire, the son of William, erected by his widow in 1582; nor on that of Ambrose Smith esquire, his grandson, who died 27th July, 1584; âeâ nor, again, on that, at Husbandâs Bosworth in the same county, of Erasmus Smith esquire, who died in 1616, another son of John Smith of Withcott. âfâ
To all appearance it was the son of Erasmus, Sir Roger Smith, first mentioned, who, having acquired a taste for gentilitial antiquities, was the first of his family to affect a connection with the ancient race of Heriz
âbâ This tradition â was in fact nothing more than a conjecture âreasonably pre- sumedââ by Morant, in his H story of Essex, 1768, vol. i. p. 119. under the manor of South Weald, which belonged to the family of Smith.
âcâ Chetwynd MS. quoted in hist. of Leieestershire, ii. 387.
âdâ Hist. of Leic. vol. ii. pl. lxxi. Fig. 6.
âeâ lbid. figg. 11, 12, described p. 393.
âfâ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 469.
of Nottinghamshire, and to adopt the quartering of their arms. In his epitaph the family is designated as Herez of Wiverton,â and we find in Thorotonâs History of that county, that there was one William de Heriz of that place, to whom Sir Ralph Basset, of Drayton, who died in 13 Ric. I., made a grant of lands in frank-marriage; but the said William established no family, Joan his daughter and heir being married to Sir Jordan le Bret. The main stock of the family is more fully noticed by Thornton under the manors of Widmerpole and Grnrnolston; and it is there shown that they became extinct in the male line in 3 Edw. Ill., their representation devolving to the families of Swillington and Pierpoints âgâ
Their arms were, Azure, three hedgehogs orâa canting coat, that animal being in French herison, and in low-Latin hericus,, of which the oldâEnglish, and correct heraldic, synonyme is urchin. Sir Roger Smith varied this bearing by a difference, quartering with his own arms, for Herez of Wiverton,ââAzure, a fess argent between three hedgehogs or. Finding that he made this difference, we might imagine that he did not act without the authority of the College of Arms; but for this there is no evidence, and no such coat of Heriz appears in the Visitations. The worthy knight had evidently a vivid imagination in matters of pedigree for his second wife, the daughter of Thomas Goodman of Aldgate, in the county of Middlesex, esq. was supposed to be descended from ancestors who, âthrow a long-continued virtuous lyne, gave being to the famous family of the Goodmans, alias Goosman, in Spaine ! âhâ
He had a family connexion with that great amateur genealogist, William Lord Burghley for his father Erasmus Smith, of Somerby and Husbandâs Bosworth, co. Leicester, married for his second wife Margery widow of Roger Cave of Stanford, co. Northampton, sister to the Lord Treasurer.
His descendants made alliances of unquestionable rank. His son Edward, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward Heron, KB., had issue Sir Edward Smith, of Edmondthorpe, created a Baronet in 1660-61. This dignity became extinct on the death of Sir Edward the second Baronet in 1720-21. But Erasmus Smith, son of Sir Roger by his second wife Anna Goodman (alias Goosman), married the Hon Mary Hare, daughter of Hugh Lord Coleraine; and his son, Hugh Smith, by Dorothy Dacre, daughter of Dacre Barrett Lennard, esq. had issue two daughters and coheiresses, who were married into noble families of high
âgâ in the Visitation of Nottinghamshire, 1614, by St. George Norroy, the arms of Pierpoint are tricked quartering Mannours and Heriz (without the fess), and the crest for Heriz there given is a hedgehog or. MS. Harl. 1555, p. 43.
âhâ Hist. of Leic. vol. ii. p. 181.
distinction. This Mr. Smith, who died in 1745, by his will bound his daughtersâ husbands and their children to take the name of Smith, and to bear the arms of Smith and Heriz. Dorothy, the elder daughter, was married to John Barry, esq. fourth son of James fourth Earl of Barrymore; ant Lucy the younger, became the wife of James Lord Strange, eldest son of Edward eleventh Earl of Derby. Both these gentlemen complied with the conditions of their father-in-lawâs will by prefixing the name of Smith to their own. Mrs. Smith Barry died in 1756 and her descendants have now for three generations borne the names of Smith-Barry, the present James Hugh Smith Barry, esq. of Foaty Island, county of Cork, and Marbury Hall, Cheshire being her great-grandson. âiâ Lady Strange died in 1759, and her husband Lord Strange in his fathers lifetime in 1771 but his son Edward the twelfth Earl of Derby continued to bear the name of Smith. It appears however, to have been dropped by the illustrious house of Stanley after the death of that nobleman in 1831.
There are full pedigrees of Smith, alias Heriz, in Nicholas History of Leicestershire, vol. ii. pp. 184, 385.
To all true cristen people these presentes Letters herying, seyng, or redyng. I, Xpofcr Carlyl, otherwise called Norrey Principall Herauld and Kyng of Armes of the northe parties of this realme of England, sende due and humble recomendacion as it apperteyneth to all honour and nobles, and accordyng to the auctoritie of my said office, by virtue of the Kyngâs lres patents, yeven unto me in that behalfe in every cause concernying my said office. For asmouche as a wise and discrete person of sufficient possession to use and enjoy all thinges apperteynyng to nobles, and over that comen of good progeny as is Notarely knowen in the countree wher his dwellyng is and ellys wher, whoa name is called William Hares otherwyse called Smyth of the countie of Leicester, gentilman; the whiche William hath desired me, by vertu of my said office, to order and devyse for him suche armes as may be convenyent to him and to his yssue of his body begoten, without preiudice or damage donyng to any other person. And for the same knowleche that I have well proved in his vertu and substance, I, the
âiâ See the pedigree in Burkeâs Landed Gentry (edit. 1543), p 60; where it is stated that Dorothy Smith brought to her husband large estates in the cos. of Tipperary, Louth, and Huntingdon. Mr. Smith-Barry now bears his paternal coat in his first and fourth principal quarter, and Smith and Herix quartered in the second and third quarter.
said Kyng of Armes, have devysid unto the same Wittm these armes folowyng, as it apperteyneth to myn said office without reproehe or demaunde of any person, that is to say, he berith, Gowlys, a cheveron
golde betwinxt three besaunts, upon the cheucron three crosses forme pyched sable, which armes in the mergyu more playnly doth appierin. And for asmochc as the said William is daily avanced in konnyng and vertue, I, the said Norrey, ratifie and conferme the said armes to hym and to his posteritie for evermore. In witness wherof, I, the said Kyng of Armes, have signed these presentes with myn owne hande and sealled the same with myn seale of auctoritie, the viii th day of flâebruary, in the yere of oure Lord God Mcccclxxxxix. and the xv th yere of the reigne of oure soverayin Lord Kyng Henry the VII th.
(Loc. sig.) Xpâofer Norrey.
In composing the anus above described, Carlyl alias Norroy appears to have combined the crosses fitchâee found in other coats of Smith with besaunts, in allusion to the granteeâs descent from Zouch,
Roger Smyth, gentilman, the recipient of the following grant of a Crest, was the grandson of William, Who received the previous grant of Arms. He resided at Withcote, and died in 1603: having married Frances daughter of Sir Thomas Griffin of Dingley, co Northampton. The griffinâs head appears to have been granted to him in allusion to this alliance by which he bad three daughters only. (Hist. of Leic. ii. 184.) It was not adopted by other branches of the family; but their usual crest was a goat or antelopes head rising out of a coronet. This is variously described as, âout of a ducal coronet, a goatâs head,â when appearing on the monument of Erasmus Smith esquire, at Husbands Bosworth, 1616 (Ibid. p.469); as âan antelopeâs head couped argent, corned or,â on the monument of âthe grave and religious Sir Roger Smith,â at Edmondthorpe (Ibid. p. 180) and as out of a ducal coronet a goats head argent,â on a hatchment at Frolesworth (Ibid. vol IV. P. 186).
GRANT OF CREST TO SMITH ALIAS HERIZ.
To all nobles and gentles these presant tres redynge or seinge, &c. Gilbart Dethicke, knight, ats Garter Principall King of Armes, sendeth diewe and humble camendacios and greatynge. Equite willeth and reason ordayneth that men verteuus and of noble corage be by ther dymerets and good renowne rewarded, not all only ther persons in this mortall ]yffe so breffe and transsitory, but also those that shalbe of ther bodies descended, to be in all places of honnor with other nobles and gentils accepted and taken by sarten ensignes and demonstrances of honnor and nobilnes, that is to saye, blason, healme and tymber and for as mouche as one Roger Smyth, gentilman, is descended of one WilIiam Hares, otherwise called Smyth, ofthe countie of Leicester, gentilman, longe tyme bearing armes, hathe ernestly required me, the saide Garter, to devise and appoynte to his armes a creast diewe and lefull to be borne, I, seinge his requeste botbe juste and reasonable, by the authorite and power givin to me and to my saide office of Garter Principall Kinge of Arrnes, under the moste noble Greate Seale of England, have devised and sett fourth to his saide armes a mean diewe and lefull to be borne, that is to sayc,
uppon his helmet, on a torse golde and geules, an arme couppâe, the sleve party per pall golde and geules, holding in hus hande a griffinâs hedd rased asure, beked gold, langeud, eyed, and ered geules, manteled geules, dobled sylver,
as more playnely appereth depicted in this margent to have and to holde the said creasté to tile said Roger Smyth, gentilman, and to his brothers and there posteryte, and they it to use and enjoye for evermore. In witness whereof, I, the saide Garter Principall King of Armes, have sett unto my hand and seale with the seale of the offince. Geven and graunted at London. the xvi daye of Maye, in the vii th yeare of the raynge of ower Soveraiyne Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God Quene of Englande, Fli-aunce, and Irelande, Deffender of the ffayth, and in the yere of our Lorde God 1565.
(Loc. sig.) P me G. Dethicke ats
Garter Principall King of Armes.
This patent enterlyned and confirmed in the tyme of my visitacö of the citie of London, in Ao. 1568.
Robt Cooke alias Clarencieux Roy Darmes.
The Editor is indebted to Richard Caulfield, esq., B.A., of Cork, for copies of these patents, of which the originals were found by him in the possession of Michael Green, esq., of Middleton, whose mother was a Smith, of the family of Smith of Rathcourcy, co. Cork, which bore for arms as blazoned in the first patent. It would seem, therefore, that a branch of the family of Smith alias Heriz had settled in Ireland some generations before their coheiress was married to Mr. Barry.
You may know of this already, but I thought might be of interest. ‘The Ricardian’ 2014 has this article:’The Plantagenet in the Parish: the burial of Richard III’s daughter in medieval London’ by Christian Steer (pp 63-73). A 16th century herald from the College of Arms listed some 900 monuments in London churches. In St James Garlickhithe he noted ‘the countesse of huntyngdon ladie Herbert wtout a stone’. Ironically, in a way, he also noted the burial of several members of the Stanley family in the same church. It seems that Katherine, like her father has been hiding in (almost) plain sight!
Thanks, Celia! That was a great article; will have to update the blog post!
Pingback: History A'la Carte 4-18-13 - Random Bits of Fascination
I haven’t read through all the comments yet — I have been doing my genealogy work and discovered that Katherine was my 22nd Great Aunt — so fascinating and bizarre sort of. So cool the discoveries we can finally piece together with DNA and such research etc đ – Thanks for such an enlightening article!