August 2025

August  2025
I DON'T NEED A RIDE. I NEED AMMUNITION.

Translate

Showing posts with label War of the Roses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War of the Roses. Show all posts

Saturday, January 09, 2021

George Lyon and his sperm

 

I believe we all know people who have clearly chosen the wrong profession; doctors sickened by the sight of their patients, bartenders opposed to public intoxication and politicians with an unhealthy reverence for the truth. But it is hard to imagine a man who applied himself for so long to a profession for which he had less talent, whose career path was more pockmarked with failure, an individual with more of a supplementary destiny for disaster than Mr. George Lyon, from the little English village of Up Holland, Lancaster.  George called himself the “King of the Robbers”. But although George made his living as a thief, he was a natural born lover. He just never figured out how to make a living at it.
The village gets its name from the same source as the nation of the same name. In the middle ages a “holland’ was a bolt of cotton cloth, and during the 18th century the rolling hills and plains of Lancashire, in northwest England, were one of the world’s great cotton growing regions, along with the western section of what would become the Netherlands.
So wealthy did one cotton growing Lancashire family become that they took the name “de Holland”.
The de Hollands are known as an “ill-fated” family primarily because of Robert de Holland who established the village of Up Holland on a ridge, midway between the towns of Wigan and Skemersdale, in 1307. 
In a power play between the vacillating King Edward III and the bold and decisive Earl of Lancaster, Robert initially sided with Lancaster. But Edward unexpectedly acted decisively and Lancaster uncharacteristically dithered and so Robert switched sides just before the Battle of Boroughbridge, on March 16, 1322 - at which Lancaster was killed. The King won but he never fully trusted Robert again and had him thrown into jail. Robert stayed there until 1328 when somebody did the King a favor and chopped off Robert de Holland’s “ill-fated” head.
By the time George Lyon was born on a back street in Up Holland in 1761, the cotton plantations of Lancashire were feeding the birth of the industrial revolution. Initially weaving was a home business, where working families bought a hand loom on time for two pounds , usually from the same employer who bought the finished cloth from them. For the rest of his life, when asked to give a profession, George always said “Weaver”, but it is likely he worked at it only as a child, “…carding and spinning cotton… until I became of sufficient size and strength for my father to put me into a loom”, as William Radcliffe explained from his own life.
In the late eighteenth century there were as many as 75,000 hand loom weavers in Britain. Then in 1785 the Reverend Edmund Cartwright invented the power loom, which could be operated by children, and the income of weavers began to plummet.
But George Lyon was not qualified to claim he was the victim of economic displacement because he had already established a career as an inveterate thief. In 1786, at the age of 25, George was arrested for mugging a man on the Kings Highway in Wigan. This was a hanging offense, but instead of death, George was sentenced to be lugged, or “transported" , to the American colonies.
Perhaps as many as 50,000 convicts a year were shipped to America in chains, most being sold into indentured servitude for seven years. That would make convicts the single largest source of emigrants to America in the century leading up to the revolution. Mostly this heritage has been whitewashed out of the history books, but it does explain Doctor Samuel Johnson’s 1769 description of Americans as “…a race of convicts (who) ought to be content with anything we may allow them short of hanging.”
But although George was sentenced to seven years in the penal colony of America, there is no record he ever made it transoceanic. However, I am of the opinion that he did, and that at the end of his term George was forcibly returned to England as an undesirable, even in a convict nation, leaving a trail of his genes behind him.
In 1793 the officials of Up Holland were unpleasantly surprised to see George Lyon in the flesh, returned from exile and free as a bird. There had been expectations the reprobate would be scalped by a Red Indian or an offended husband or at least drowned at sea. 
The primary complaint does not seem to have been that George was a master criminal so much as a legendary local Lothario. He was married, but according to a May 1809 letter by Miss Ellen Weeton, “In two houses near together, there have been in each, a mother and daughter lying in (giving birth), nearly at the same time; and one man (the notorious George Lyon) reputed to be father to all four!”
Branded as a serial fornicator, George Lyon indisputably ever was. But his reputation as a highwayman rests on a single escapade, when he and two partners decided to hold up the mail coach which carried cash for the Maypole Colliery. One afternoon George and his two accomplices rendezvoused at the Bull’s Head Pub in Up Holland and drew attention to them selves. At an opportune moment they slipped out to the barn, mounted their rented horses and were waiting at the Tawd River Bridge as the mail coach bound for Liverpool approached.
The plan was for George to block the road and fire two shots to convince the coachman to stop. Then while George held his third flint lock pistol on the driver the accomplices would take the money box and rob the passengers. Unfortunately George had not taken the weather into account. It was raining heavily, and when George pulled the triggers, the hammers of his two pistols slammed onto wet powder. Unharmed the coachman whipped the horses around George and the coach wheels splashed him as it galloped past.
Having failed as a highwayman George returned to his primary profession, and his hobby as a thief. But I believe it was the official outrage over George’s favorite leisure pursuit which prompted the government’s investment in a professional “thief taker” named John McDonald. By representing himself as a fence McDonald was able to buy stolen goods from George, paying for them with marked money. In October of 1814 George was arrested, and after a brief trial, on 8 April, 1815, he was sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was not unusual for the time. Of the 213 people hanged at Lancaster Castle between 1800 and 1865 only 20% had been convicted of murder. The rest had been sentenced for burglary, lying under oath, arson, or rustling cattle or sheep.
Judgment day for George was Saturday, 22 April 1815, in the hangman's corner of Lancaster Castle (above).  
At about noon, dressed in his best black suit and well shined jockey boots, George was led from the Drop Room by John Higgens, 'The Gentleman Jailer', and delivered into the hands the hangman.  A crowd of 5,000 witnessed as the noose was slipped around George's neck. The trap door was opened on the low platform. George dropped about three feet and then slowly strangled to death. As the Lancaster Gazette recorded, “After hanging the usual time (an hour) the bodies were taken down…and given to their friends for internment.” 
A huge crowd attended the funeral back in Up Holland, a large section of which included George's progeny.  George Lyon, king of the lovers, was dead at fifty-four. He was buried next to his mother, sharing a grave with his legal daughter, Nanny Lyons, and it is her name on the stone that caps their shared grave.

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

YOU CAN'T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN. George Lyon and his sperm

 

I believe we all know people who have clearly chosen the wrong profession; doctors sickened by the sight of their patients, bartenders opposed to public intoxication and politicians with an unhealthy reverence for the truth. But it is hard to imagine a man who applied himself for so long to a profession for which he had less talent, whose career path was more pockmarked with failure, an individual with more of a supplementary destiny for disaster than Mr. George Lyon, from the little English village of Up Holland, Lancaster.  George called himself the “King of the Robbers”. But although George made his living as a thief, he was a natural born lover. He just never figured out how to make a living at it.
The village gets its name from the same source as the nation of the same name. In the middle ages a “holland’ was a bolt of cotton cloth, and during the 18th century the rolling hills and plains of Lancashire, in northwest England, were one of the world’s great cotton growing regions, along with the western section of what would become the Netherlands.
So wealthy did one cotton growing Lancashire family become that they took the name “de Holland”.
The de Hollands are known as an “ill-fated” family primarily because of Robert de Holland who established the village of Up Holland on a ridge, midway between the towns of Wigan and Skemersdale, in 1307. 
In a power play between the vacillating King Edward III and the bold and decisive Earl of Lancaster, Robert initially sided with Lancaster. But Edward unexpectedly acted decisively and Lancaster uncharacteristically dithered and so Robert switched sides just before the Battle of Boroughbridge, on March 16, 1322 - at which Lancaster was killed. The King won but he never fully trusted Robert again and had him thrown into jail. Robert stayed there until 1328 when somebody did the King a favor and chopped off Robert de Holland’s “ill-fated” head.
By the time George Lyon was born on a back street in Up Holland in 1761, the cotton plantations of Lancashire were feeding the birth of the industrial revolution. Initially weaving was a home business, where working families bought a hand loom on time for two pounds , usually from the same employer who bought the finished cloth from them. For the rest of his life, when asked to give a profession, George always said “Weaver”, but it is likely he worked at it only as a child, “…carding and spinning cotton… until I became of sufficient size and strength for my father to put me into a loom”, as William Radcliffe explained from his own life.
In the late eighteenth century there were as many as 75,000 hand loom weavers in Britain. Then in 1785 the Reverend Edmund Cartwright invented the power loom, which could be operated by children, and the income of weavers began to plummet.
But George was not qualified to claim he was the victim of economic displacement because he had already established a career as an inveterate thief. In 1786, at the age of 25, George was arrested for mugging a man on the Kings Highway in Wigan. This was a hanging offense, but instead of death, George was sentenced to be lugged, or “transportation”, to the American colonies.
Perhaps as many as 50,000 convicts a year were shipped to America in chains, most being sold into indentured servitude for seven years. That would make convicts the single largest source of emigrants to America in the century leading up to the revolution. Mostly this heritage has been whitewashed out of the history books, but it does explain Doctor Samuel Johnson’s 1769 description of Americans as “…a race of convicts (who) ought to be content with anything we may allow them short of hanging.”
But although George was sentenced to seven years in the penal colony of America, there is no record he ever made it transoceanic. However, I am of the opinion that he did, and that at the end of his term George was forcibly returned to England as an undesirable, even in a convict nation, leaving a trail of his genes behind him.
In 1793 the officials of Up Holland were unpleasantly surprised to see George Lyon in the flesh, returned from exile and free as a bird. There had been expectations the reprobate would be scalped by a Red Indian or an offended husband or at least drowned at sea. 
The primary complaint does not seem to have been that George was a master criminal so much as a legendary local Lothario. He was married, but according to a May 1809 letter by Miss Ellen Weeton, “In two houses near together, there have been in each, a mother and daughter lying in (giving birth), nearly at the same time; and one man (the notorious George Lyon) reputed to be father to all four!”
Branded as a serial fornicator, George Lyon indisputably ever was. But his reputation as a highwayman rests on a single escapade, when he and two partners decided to hold up the mail coach which carried cash for the Maypole Colliery. One afternoon George and his two accomplices rendezvoused at the Bull’s Head Pub in Up Holland and drew attention to them selves. At an opportune moment they slipped out to the barn, mounted their rented horses and were waiting at the Tawd River Bridge as the mail coach bound for Liverpool approached.
The plan was for George to block the road and fire two shots to convince the coachman to stop. Then while George held his third flint lock pistol on the driver the accomplices would take the money box and rob the passengers. Unfortunately George had not taken the weather into account. It was raining heavily, and when George pulled the triggers, the hammers of his two pistols slammed onto wet powder. Unharmed the coachman whipped the horses around George and the coach wheels splashed him as it galloped past.
Having failed as a highwayman George returned to his primary profession, and his hobby as a thief. But I believe it was the official outrage over George’s favorite leisure pursuit which prompted the government’s investment in a professional “thief taker” named John McDonald. By representing himself as a fence McDonald was able to buy stolen goods from George, paying for them with marked money. In October of 1814 George was arrested, and after a brief trial, on 8 April, 1815, he was sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was not unusual for the time. Of the 213 people hanged at Lancaster Castle between 1800 and 1865 only 20% had been convicted of murder. The rest had been sentenced for burglary, lying under oath, arson, or rustling cattle or sheep.
Judgment day for George was Saturday, 22 April 1815, in the hangman's corner of Lancaster Castle (above).  
At about noon, dressed in his best black suit and well shined jockey boots, George was led from the Drop Room by John Higgens, 'The Gentleman Jailer', and delivered into the hands the hangman.  A crowd of 5,000 witnessed as the noose was slipped around George's neck. The trap door was opened on the low platform. George dropped about three feet and then slowly strangled to death. As the Lancaster Gazette recorded, “After hanging the usual time (an hour) the bodies were taken down…and given to their friends for internment.” 
A huge crowd attended the funeral back in Up Holland, a large section of which included George's progeny.  George Lyon, king of the lovers, was dead at fifty-four. He was buried next to his mother, sharing a grave with his legal daughter, Nanny Lyons, and it is her name on the stone that caps their shared grave.

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

KING OR ANTI-KING - The Mystery of Lambert Simmel

I don’t know who Lambert Simmel was. But I know he wasn’t who he said he was. The question is, was he who Henry Tudor said he was? And I truly doubt that, too.  As Gordon Smith has pointed out, his very name has a pantomime sound to it, “and a pantomime context.” As I just said, I have my doubts. Lambert Simmel claimed to be the Earl of Warwick and there is a possibility that, in fact, he was the Earl of Warwick. But, if that was true, then who the devil was Lambert Simmel?  At the core of that mystery is King Richard III, a bundle of mysteries all by himself.
Richard was the last of the legendary Plantagenet Kings of England. Legend says his ancestor Geoffrey often stuck the yellow flower of the ‘common broom’ in his helmet for identification; the Latin name for the plant being “planta genesta”. The Plantagenet dynasty produced Henry II who won the battle of  Agincourt,  Richard The Lion Heart who killed a lot of people and King John, the failure who was forced to sign the Magna Carta. They and their genes commanded England and large parts of France for 300 years.
But the Plantagenets came to an end on 22 August, 1485 when Richard III (above)), house of York, was killed on Bosworth field. He was the last English King who died fighting in battle, a death which puts the lie to William Shakespeare’s claim that he was a deformed limping hunchback. In fairness it must also be noted that Richard was probably responsible for the death of Edward IV, also a Plantagenet and the rightful king of England when Richard killed him.
Edward VI, the Prince of Wales, was only 12 years old when his father died on 9 April, 1483. But, of course, a twelve year old cannot rule a country, and the usual system was for the boy’s adult supporters to divide up the kingdom and run it into the ground until the boy was strong enough to throw them out. 
So the future Edward V’s adult guardians sought to reach a deal with the boy’s uncle, Richard, the Duke of Gloucester. Graciously, Richard invited all the other guardians over for a great dinner to booze it up and talk how they were going to carve up the kingdom while Edward grew.
Early the next morning, while they were all still hung over, Richard he had them arrested and later executed.
Richard also had Young Prince Edward locked up in the Tower of London, to be joined within weeks by his eleven year old brother, Richard, the Earl of Warwick. The two boys were seen playing together in the courtyard of the Tower of London during June and July of 1483 and then they simply faded away. Shortly there after Richard had himself crowned King, Richard III.
The assumption has always been that the Princes were murdered on Richard’s orders. And that would have been the smart thing for Richard to have done.  But the mystery of what became of the princes has kept an army of scribes and historians busy ever since, in the hope of explaining how, in God’s name, a greedy slug like Henry Tudor ever got to be the a king of England.
Unlike Richard, Henry Tudor was no warrior. Nor was he a lover. The only passion he ever displayed was for money.  He was a voracious, avaricious, bloodless money grubber. In fact, his personality is not far from the lead character in the play "Richard III", just without the hump.
He was the only child born to 13 year old Margaret Beaufort Tudor, two months after the boy’s father, Edmund Tudor, had died. Now, Edmund had been the King’s half brother. Margaret was the granddaughter of the third son of King Edward III with his third wife; in short Henry Tudor’s royal blood was so watered down that it resembled lemon aid, and he kept it at about the same temperature. 
But because Richard III had been so ruthless in eliminating any  competitors for his throne, his only competition left was his bloodless, passionless distant relative Henry Tudor; unless, of course, one of the missing princes still lived.
Having defeated and butchered Richard III at Boswell Field in August of 1485, the newly crowned Henry VII was given no time to rest on his purple cushions. He had to face down a York rebellion in the spring of 1486.
And then again, in March of 1487, yet another group of nobles crowned a rival King in Ireland, a 16 year old boy who claimed he was the Earl of Warwick, the younger of the two missing princes from the Tower. 
But was he? Most of the noble men who would have known Warwick from 1483, had long since been executed by either Richard III or Henry VII.  And it would have made sense that Warwick, as the younger of the princes, would have been less closely guarded than the direct heir to the throne.
So it might have been possible to sneak young Warwick out of the tower and spirit him to Ireland; maybe, possibly.  And how do you tell a King from a common man, except a King wears a crown. As a wise man once said, he must be The King because he ain't got shit all over him. Or maybe it was his manner. He acted like a king. And how does A King act? The only images most people saw of the king was his face imprinted on coins. So, before photography, unless you have your face on a coin, How do you prove you are The King of England?   
Besides, as historian A.F. Pollard pointed out,  “Immediately Henry gained the throne he accused Richard of cruelty and tyranny but strangely did not mention the murder of the little princes. Henry did not announce that the boys had been murdered until July 1486, nearly a year after Richard’s death. Could Henry Tudor have murdered them?”  Maybe, possibly. After all, once on the throne his life and his children's lives depended on securing his claim to being King.
It appears an Oxford priest, Richard Simon, found the son of a baker, maybe named Lambert Seimmel, who physically resembled the dead boy, Richard, the Duke of Warwick.  The bright lad was coached in the history and behavior of the boy last seen in July, 1483.  Richard Simon decided it would be best if the resurrected heir made his first public appearance away from London. Ireland was chosen because the nobility there - the Duke of Clarence, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Thomas Fitzgerald, Duke of Kildare and the Lord Deputy of Ireland - were both eager to believe the fraud. If it was a fraud.  So they borrowed a crown from a statue in a Dublin Church and proclaimed the boy the rightful king. Another York die hard, Margaret of Burgundy, even paid for 2,000 German mercenaries to fight for the rebellion, when they invaded England.
On 16 June , 1487, some 20,000 men representing the houses of York and Lancaster fought yet another battle to decide the fate of England, this one near the village of  Stoke.  Henry Tudor was, of course, not on the field of battle.  But when it ended, half of the rebellions troops were captured and most of their leaders were dead and Henry Tudor was confirmed as Henry VII, King of England.  Henry Tudor begat a bloodline that produced among others, Henry VIII and his many wives, and Elizabeth I, the virgin queen.  But that future was mere hazy possibilities on the horizon on the morning after the Battle of Stoke.
Soon after the battle Henry VII was able to announce that the supposedly missing prince, Richard, the Earl of Warwick, had been captured. And he was not actually Warwick, but an imposter by the name of Lambert Simmel,  The imposter was graciously granted a full pardon by Henry because the boy had been a mere tool of the real conspirators.
Those ignoble and noble conspirators were all executed, and Henry seized their wealth and land. But Lambert Simmel was retained as a spit turner in the palace kitchen, and later a falconer. Henry VII now had living proof always close at hand that the princes were truly dead, at whomever's hand. And that he was now the legitimate King of England. And all he required for this to be true was that you believe that Lambert Simmel was the boy who had impersonated the Earl of Warwick. And that the real Warwick had been murdered by the humpbacked Richard III. But could Lambert Simmel have been the real prince?  Or could he have been somebody else?
“Lambert” is ancient German for “Bright land”. And “Simmel” seems to come from the Hebrew "Shim’on" meaning ‘listening’. Neither name was common in England or Ireland during the middle ages.   However, Gordon Smith, in his essay “Lambert Simmel and the King from Dublin” has pointed out that “the maiden name of Edward VII's mistress...was Elizabeth Lambert."
So it could be that Lambert Simmel was a code name for the real illegitimate child of Henry VII and his mistress. If so that would make the boy an imposter of an imposter, used by Henry Tudor to discredit the belief that he and not Richard Plantagenet had murdered a rightful King of England. Maybe. It could be.
If you read enough history you come the realization that the past is like a hallway in the Tower of London. It winds up and around, past cell after cell. There may be scratches on the wall in each room, or personal belongings left behind. But the only way to know what really happened in that cell is to have been there at the time. And to have been completely honest and without bias.  And how many people are capable of that? History is what we believe happened. It is always part fact, part opinion and part imagination. It is a story. It could be. It was possible. It probably happened that way. It might have happened that way. Or it might not have. In short, reading history is not for the faint of heart.
Lambert Simmel was clearly an imposter. But whose imposter was he? He died around 1525, and left no record of his own. And everything else is just a fascinating conjecture called "his story"
-30 -

Blog Archive