Margaret, Countess of Salisbury

I happened to see this small plaque when I looked through the Priory at Christchurch. Even when I enlarge it, it is difficult to read, so I will type it.

Margaret Countess of Salisbury

Connected with this chantry there is a personal association of a deeply interesting and pathetic kind. Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, who erected the lovely chantry as her own resting place, was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV. History has hardly a sadder tale to tell than that of the fate that befell the proud Countess and her relatives. Her grandfather, Warwick the Kingmaker, was slain at Barnet in 1471, her father was attained of high treason and died, by unknown means at the order of his brother Edward IV; her brother and eldest son were executed for high treason, and when another of her sons, the famous Cardinal Pole, Dean of Wimborne at the age of 17, and in later years Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury, published on the continent an attack on Henry VIII, the tyrant turned in a fury on every member of the Pole's family within reach. Some were tried and executed, others were attained without trial; the Countess of Salisbury, then over 70 years of age, being among the number. She refused to place her head upon the block, and it was hacked from her shoulders as she stood erect, and so extreme was Henry's rage, that he refused to allow her remains to be laid in the beautiful chantry at Christchurch. She was buried within the precincts of the tower of London in the cemetery for traitors - the dingy red brick St. Peter's Chapel.

--oo--

I did not understand the word 'attained':
It is where someone is stripped of title and lands (property) for a capital crime. Descendants have 'tainted blood' and cannot inherit the title or lands.

Having previously written about man's inhumanity to man, here too was a story that interested me. And there is a good amount of information about the woman Margaret Pole 1473 - 1541.

Margaret's father was a Plantagenet, George of Clarence whose bothers were King Edward IV and Richard III.
When Margaret was three years old, her mother and younger brother died. Margaret's father killed two servants who he suspected had poisoned them.
  
Her Father was accused of plotting against Edward IV and was therefore attained and executed for treason! His titles and lands were therefore forfeited.
King Edward IV died when Margaret was ten years old and her other uncle, became King Richard III.

These guys apparently did no get along because Richard III declared Edward IV's marriage invalid and his children therefore illegitimate.As well that Margaret and her brother Edward (who King Edward IV had made Earl of Warwick) were barred from succession to the throne. Further Richard III ordered Margaret and her brother be held at Sheriff Hutton Castle because of their potential rivalry to the throne.

Richard III was defeated (slain) by Henry VII (Tudor) in 1487 when Margaret was fourteen years old!

King Henry VII married Margaret's cousin, Elizabeth who was Edward IV's daughter.  Margaret's brother, Edward who had been held at Sheriff Hutton Castle was then was kept in the Tower of London.

The same year, Henry VII gave Margaret  in marriage to his cousin, Sir Richard Pole - his mother was half sister to the king's mother. The marriage was a political one, to make it more difficult for plotters to use Margaret as a figurehead against the king.

Two years later Margaret's brother, Edward was attained and executed for being involved in an obscure plot where one Perkin Warbeck impersonated Margaret's cousin, the 1st Duke of York, and plotting against the king.

Margaret's husband, Sir Richard Pole held office in Henry VII's government and became Chamberlain to Arthur, the king's elder son.
When Arthur married Catherine of Aragon, Margaret became one of Catherine's ladies-in-waiting - that is until Arthur's death 1502 (he was still in his teens).

Margaret had five children and in 1502 she was widowed, but fortunately was able to inherit a small area of land from her husband but no salary and no further prospects. Henry VII actually paid for her husband's funeral.

When King Henry VIII came to the throne 1509 he married Catherine of Aragon and Margaret again became one of her ladies-in-waiting.
In 1512 Parliament restored Margaret's brother's land and the lands of her grandfather and she regained the Earldom of Salisbury, to become Countess

The Countess of Salisbury managed the lands well and by 1538 she was the fifth richest peer in England! Her 1st son became Baron Montague and he spoke on behalf of the family in the House of Lords.

Margaret, The Countess of Salisbury's favour varied in Henry VIII's court and when she had a land dispute with the king in 1518 he awarded the contested land to the Duchy of Somerset which was land and title previously held by his grandfather.

In 1520 Margaret was appointed governess of to the king's daughter, Princess Mary, but the next year she fell from favour because of her sons' anti-king activities - she was restored though by 1525.

When Henry VII married Anne Boleyn replacing Catherine of Aragon in 1533, Catherine's daughter, Princess Mary, was declared a bastard.  Margaret, loyal to the princess and still her governess, refused to return Mary's gold plate and jewels. Magaret was forbidden to tend Mary again.

In 1536 when Anne Boleyn was arrested, Margaret was permitted back in court, but only briefly.
Margaret's third son, Reginald, had been devoted to the Catholic Church and had represented  Henry VIII in that capacity, but in 1536 he fell out with the king. He had warned about the dangers of the Boleyn marriage.
Reginald Pole maintained that Henry VIII's first marriage (to his brother's wife Catherine of Aragon) denied royal supremacy and further he urged the princes of Europe to dispose Henry.
Outraged, Henry wrote to Margaret and she in turn wrote to her son reproving him.

1538 saw another of Margaret's sons, Sir Geoffrey Pole arrested for corresponding with Reginald and the eldest brother, Lord Montague (Baron). This conspiracy was deemed to have included  Margaret aslso, so they too were arrested.
In January 1539 Sir Geoffrey Pole was pardoned but Margaret's son Henry and cousin Exeter were tried for treason, attained and executed.
In May 1539 Margaret was attained as her father had been. The lands forfeited were in the South of England, strategically important for anyone planning an invasion from Europe.
Margaret and remaining family members were sentenced to death and 'could be executed at the king's pleasure'.

As part of the the evidence against them Thomas Cromwell produced a tunic bearing the Five Wounds of Christ symbolizing Margaret's support of Roman Catholicism (and perhaps a Northern uprising) and for the succession right of her son Reginald - he had married the king's Catholic daughter, Mary.
This tunic was 'discovered' six months after Margaret's house and affects had been searched and perhaps ransacked at the time of her arrest so was probably a fabrication.

Margaret Pole, as she now called herself was held with her grandson, Henry and Exeter's son in the Tower of London at the king's expense awaiting his pleasure.

In 1540 Thomas Cromwell also fell from favour and was attained and executed.

Margaret always denied the accusation of treason. It is said she scribed the following on her cell wall.

For traitor on the block should die

I am no traitor, no not I

My faithfulness stands fact and so

Towards the block I shall not go!

Nor make one step as you shall see

Christ in Thy mercy, save Thou me!

On the morning of 27 May 1541 Margaret Pole, untitled Countess of Salisbury, was told that she was to die within the hour.

She answered that she had committed no crime!

She was taken from her cell to where a low, wooden block had been prepared for her.

As she was of noble birth, she was not to be executed publicly, however there were about 150 witnesses present.

Margaret was by this time, elderly, frail and ill but she refused to place her neck on the block! She was forced down and as she struggled, the executioner's blow gashed her shoulder. It took ten addition blows to complete the execution!

Some say that after the first blow, she ran and was pursued by the executioner who struck her until she died.

She was buried at the Chapel of St.Peter ad Vincula, the cemetery for traitors  within the Tower of London.

I enjoyed my research and hope that I have correctly detailed it. It leaves me speechless.

 

Athropology Doco

I saw a documentary the other day about Chimpanzee monkeys in the savannah and they were speculating how human prehistoric ancestors first stood erect - on two feet/legs. 
They showed the monkeys standing up to see over tall grass.

Now that may well be the case but by just looking over tall grass does not appear to be a reason for animals to walk on two feet.

I have hunted rabbits for years, and they too rear up on their hind legs to look over long grass. Mind you the legs are not fully extended.
I had a hunting dog that used to do the same thing! Dogs stand up to do tricks, but they are not destined to walk on two feet/legs.

There are other animals that from time to time stand erect.

The diversity of nature is a pleasure and a fascination.

The Irish Famine and some

I have always been interested in history and now that I rate as a senior, I realise that some of my history lessons we slanted and not critical of the groups of peoples who were allied to us - which was English and British.

It does not matter who was allied to who, but the thing about history that stands (shockingly) out to me, is man's inhumanity to man.

I have done my share of travelling and employed a wide range of people and my philosophy has has always been, people are people - we all have the same basic desire and needs.

Point one: It is interesting and amazing all the international cooperation and organization required to keep the world's transport system - that is aircraft - running and to schedule. Not only the technical side of maintenance, navigation and communication, but also booking, scheduling, luggage control, food, personnel and more.

So if we have international cooperation with air transport, why do we have no cooperation to sort out problems like Syria, starvation and all manner of ills afflicting the planet?

 On a trip to Ireland, I was reminded about the Irish Famine of 1845 - 52. This was caused by a potato blight which decimated the potato crops. 

Ireland at the time was dependent on the potato as a staple diet.

John Mitchell said, The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight but the English created the famine.

It has been estimated that one million people starved to death during the famine and the population for eight million was halved because many emigrated to escape the terrible times.

Still during the famine food was exported from Ireland. Merchants and money.

Little aid was forthcoming for the Irish from the English, but the Native American Choctaws did sent money because they too had experienced starvation.

Islam also made a contribution from the Ottoman Sultan. Curiously though he intimated that he would donate

£10 000 but Queen Victoria asked him to reduce the amount to £1 000 - she herself donated £2 000. However it is said - and difficult to prove/disprove that the Sultan sent three shiploads of food aid - successfully, despite English attempts to blockade them.

This was not the Dark Ages and and European countries were sending missions to Africa and the Antipodes to bring 'civilization'. The treatment of the Irish was not very civilized.

How did all this come about?

Well old Henry VIII did not get his own way in ditching one wife for another - the Pope did not give him permission. So instead, Henry VIII ditched the Pole and Roman Catholicism and created the Church of England. In doing so he made it illegal to be a Roman Catholic.

You can guarantee this caused opportunities for those so inclined (and with the approval of the King) to rob and plunder 'in the name of the Church of England' and to take property from folk who wanted to retain their Catholic faith.

Ireland had been governed by England and the 17th and 18th century Penal laws prohibited Catholic from owning land, leasing land, voting or holding political office, obtaining education,and even to live within 5 miles of a corporate town. This did change with the 1795 and 1829 Emancipation Act but when the potato blight struck in 1845, the bulk of the Irish population were still desperately poor.

So essentially the Irish were living on small parcels of land, eking out a subsistence living and in some way paying or providing some of their crop to absentee (mainly English) landlords. In turn, the landowners were required to pay a rate (land tax), presumably to the English government.
So when the blight struck, the  landowners could not extract anything from the Irish tenant farmers to pay the rate, so they tipped the farmers off the land! To encourage the farming families to go, roofs were removed from dwellings, or houses were destroyed, so not only were they hungry, they were homeless as well.
The death toll may not have been totally because of starvation, but because of cold and disease as well.

Of course no doubt money (or other perceived riches) was to be made by tipping the farmers from the land and is often the underlying cause of conflict.
Appalling as the treatment of the Irish was, they are by no means alone. History is littered with conquerors, exploiters, exterminators, squatters, civilizors and the like. 

Point two: Religious fervor is the other main cause of conflict over the ages. Most religious doctrines preach peace, harmony, tolerance, respect  and 'all things good'. But if people could not be converted peacefully, then it was quite profitable to bring a crusade or kill/torture people until they 'saw the light' - sometimes straight out genocide was used.
Religion is a sensitive subject and it easy to offend and these days there are those who receive some gratification by offending; offending religion or just being offensive. Take South Park and the Mary episode, take the photographer who took the topless photos of England's future queen (and the magazines), take also the people who have published films and cartoons offensive to Islam.

Where though does mob violence come from? I watched with horror, the riots in Britain. Senseless stuff where people were caught up in the moment and were making use of the opportunity to destroy property, throw things at the police and loot where they could.
There were riots in  Holland overnight because 4 000 turned up to a birthday party advertised on Facebook - these people just wanted to fight with the police and wreak havoc.
I ask the same question to Islam, why destroy property and kill innocents when doing such things is against the teachings? How many young men are actually having fun wreaking havoc? And the Pakistani politician who offered a reward for the murder of the film maker - he too no doubt is personally gratified by being outrageous. As did the Australian woman who held up a placard stating that people acting against the prophet should be beheaded! I don't think prophet taught such things.

An young African girl once asked me, 'Why is it that in Africa the people go to church regularly and pray for better things, but they remain poor and have a difficult life, while in rich counties few people go to church yet they have a good life?'
I was unable to offer a logical answer.

Point three: Money sees to have the ability to corrupt. Had the English reacted differently, the Irish may still have been hungry, but they would not have been homeless! I need not detail the quest for wealth, land and glory over the ages and the atrocities committed in the process.
Of course we generally believe that is past history and we are all civilized now.
Not so human nature is opportunistic. A child will always choose the biggest slice of cake and capitalism ranks business by wealth rather than the good they may do.
Governments (including local governments) - that is politicians, and the very rich have always managed to look after themselves and will continue to do so. 
But in the end money is no panacea.

 Here in New Zealand we have a problem: In our early history the Maori population, perhaps not on the scale of some peoples, were treated poorly and it has taken generations for the extent of the maltreatment to be recognized. Mind you there has always been inter-tribal maltreatment too.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to compensate for the maltreatment and this process is ongoing.
There is now criticism that Maori are making claims for water and wind (as well as other ongoing claims) without true  justification for such claims.

What did I say above about the human 'frailty' of being opportunistic? The same goes here - if there is money and resources up for grabs, let's hop on the gravy train.

So in this case, the Government has apologized and handed  over money and resources. The money and resources have been accepted, but to my knowledge the apology has not been accepted nor has forgiveness been forthcoming.
The New Zealand economy is fragile so money and resources need to be managed more effectively. We have to look at who and why further claims are being made.
What have Maori - as a nation - done with the resources and money? It is not readily apparent to me but Maori poor and Maori prison inmates dominate per head of population, so the real problems have not been addressed.
But it would be good if someone was to say, Maori settlements amounted to (whatever it is) and with it we have developed so much housing, these health initiatives, these employment initiatives and whatever training for our youth.
Instead the is a bureaucracy building.

Lets hope we can learn from history.