RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Warwickshire => Topic started by: EDO on Monday 02 July 12 00:26 BST (UK)
-
Hello Rootschatters
Whilst browsing TROVE pages in Electronically digitised text, of the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 January 1854 at page 3:
I came across this interesting article from an overseas correspondent.
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article30939660 *
Heading:
DISCOVERY OF THE BODY OF A BEHEADED MAN.
(From a Correspondent of Notes and Queries.)
Cheers
EDO
* Moderator comment: URL modified so it links to the article :) *
-
What an interesting story, EDO - thank you for posting it! :D
I wanted to find out what had happened to the bodies recovered, so I did a quick search and found out that "Lord John Scott ordered that the coffins be resealed and replaced with a zinc cover over the vault and a brass tomb plate. The plate was later removed to protect it from vandalism and is now kept in The Hall." http://www.visitoruk.com/historydetail.php?id=17502&f=Rugby
I wonder who the beheaded man was?
-
Fascinating stuff EDO.
(There were some amazing articles pubished in Notes and Queries.)
-
I wonder who the beheaded man was?
Hmmmm. Given the approximate date ... could he have been a supporter of Charles I who didn't get away from Cromwell, I wonder?
-
Newnham Regis or King's Regis as it is today was the seat of The Earl of Chichester who was indeed an active supporter of Charles 1 but he died around the 1670's long after the Civil War had ended.
Correction:The 1st. Earl died 1653 but he wasn't executed.
jim
-
Another thought; - could the initials ("TB", weren't they?) embroidered on the black ribbon hold a clue?
-
Newnham Manor & the church were in the possession of the Leigh family & they are the other 4 bodies found there.
I can't see anyone in the family with initials T.B.Although beheadings did happen at this time they are quite rare & I'm wondering if it was someone killed during one of the many battles in the period 1640's-50's.
jim
-
Ooooh I do love a detective story .... !
-
It would need DNA from the other bodies to establish a relationship.He could have been an in-law of the Baron (later Earl).
You would need his family tree & possibly the Heraldic Visitation tree of succession.
jim
-
The Scott's of Buccleugh descend from the marriage of Charles II's illegitimate son the Duke of Monmouth who married a Scott heiress. Monmouth was beheaded in a very botched job by Jack Ketch, what happened to the body? could this be it.
Skoosh.
-
Thanks all for your responses.
Isn't it exciting?
It is, especially for the Aussies: We did not exist in those times!
EDO
in Brisbane
-
Heads were usually mounted on a spike outside Newgate also Newnham was a bit of a backwater & it's unlikely the son of a Duke would be buried there.The head being with the body suggests a death other than execution & as the head & body were embalmed suggests they were placed in the coffin at the same time.
Newnham Manor was plundered by the Parliamentarian army & the death may have occurred at that time.
jim
-
The heading (sic) is incorrect as Newnham is near Rugby and nowhere near Nuneaton
-
I would think this has to be the most botched beheading.
http://www.real-british-ghosts.com/margaret-pole.html
-
Always best to tip the executioner.
jim
-
Always best to tip the executioner.
jim
;D ;D ;D
-
I am interested in the significance of the black ribbon tying the hands and fingers - does anyone know what this means?
-
I would think that as the body was embalmed & herbs etc. placed in the coffin that there was a period of lying in where the body could be viewed.It may be tying hands & thumbs was just a way of holding the arms across the chest.Black ribbon was a bit more dignified that string.
There was also a black ribbon round his neck to hide the cut.
The article said he had a brown pointed beard & brown hair suggesting he was quite young.
jim
-
You might be right about that Jim - I thought it might have a cult/religious/symbolic significance, and didn't think it might be something so logical. :)
-
I think the earlier suggestion that it was the Duke of Monmouth could be on the money, after his execution in 1685 some claim that he was exhumed and his head stitched back on in order for a portrait to be done, was this an explanation given out at the time to cover it all up, as he was a nephew of James II it is possible that the body was then delivered into the family for burial. The hands and thumbs may have been tied for what would have been a rough journey over unmade roads to Warwickshire. There was no plate or indication of who was in the coffin because it had all been done in secret
The T could have been Tynedale of which he was Baron and the B for Buccleuch as he had married into that family.
-
He had a public execution so it was no secret.Why would he be buried with the Leigh family to which he had no connection?
Why the initials T B instead of his own J S.
The headless body didn't have his head sewn back on,it was found placed in position & held with a black ribbon.
It's a long shot but the only shot so far.
I'm looking at the Browne & Boteler famlies.
-
Jim, I thought I had explained all that! The execution was not secret but what happened afterwards was if my explanation was correct, as for the initials how many people would know who you were talking about if you said James Scott, most have heard of the Duke of Monmouth. In those days great store was taken of their titles. He was married into the Scott family who owned the Hall at Newnham Regis, that is his connection. he took their name.
It is all supposition, so I will be interested with your conclusions from the Browne/Boteler families.
-
One of the bodies is Dame Marie Browne "Dau. of one of the Leighs & of Lady Marie dau. of the Lord Chancellor Brackley".
He was John Egerton & his daughter Mary was Francis Leigh's mother & his father's (also Francis) 2nd. wife.
When the excavation took place the Chapel was owned by John Scott who inherited from his paternal Grandmother the Duccess of Buccleuch dau. of the Duke of Montagu.
It goes on to say it came into the family through his grandfathers marriage to the dau. of the Earl of Chichester (Thomas Wriothsley).
I'm not sure whose grandfather the article refers to,that of John Scott or the Duke of Montagu.
I'm wondering if it's Maria Browne's husband.
jim
-
There are some kings buried in strange places, an English king apparently lies under a Stirling car park, which seems a bit careless, and what was supposed to be the body of James IV, killed at Flodden, lay unburied by his megalomaniac brother in law, Henry VIII, in a cellar at Sion House? lovely family!
Skoosh.
-
Yes I suppose stranger things happen.
The heraldry so far is this:
Francis Leigh ( Baron Dunsmore & Earl of Chichester) married for the 2nd. time to Audrey Boteler.
They had a daughter Elizabeth who married (1642) Thomas Wriothsley (4th. Earl of Southampton).
He inherited the title Earl of Chichester from his father-in-law.
Thomas & Elizabeth had a daughter Elizabeth who married (1673) Ralph (1st. Earl later Duke of Montagu).
Elizabeth & Ralph had a son John (2nd. Duke) who married (1705) Mary Churchill.
As he had no sons the title of succession died out.
John & Mary had a daughter Mary who married George Brudenell who inherited the title & became the 1st. Duke of Montagu (2nd. Ed.)
Mary & George had a daughter Elizabeth who married Henry Scott (3rd. Duke of Buccleuch).
These are the Grandparents of John Scott who owned the Chapel when the bodies were dug up.
-
So the Scott connection there is later than the death of Monmouth Jim.
Skoosh.
-
http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=11768
I think we need the above program to sort this out
Margp
-
So the Scott connection there is later than the death of Monmouth
Actually no.
King Charles 11 begat:
James Scott 1st. Duke of Monmouth later 1st. Duke of Buccleuch who begat:
James Scott who begat:
Francis Scott 2nd. Duke of Buccleuch who begat:
Francis Scott who begat:
Henry Scott 3rd. Duke of Buccleuch who married Elizabeth dau. of the 1st. Duke of Montagu & 3 x GreatGranddaughter of Francis Leigh.
So the Duke of Monmouth beheading precluded the Leigh connection with the family.
jim
-
"Keep the heid" Jim, that's what I said! ;D
Skoosh.
-
That was 5 years ago Marg.They've probably all got other jobs by now.
-
Keep the heid" Jim, that's what I said!
Yes that's what you said..I read it wrong.
I think I've had too many begats.
jim
-
I think the earlier suggestion that it was the Duke of Monmouth could be on the money, after his execution in 1685 some claim that he was exhumed and his head stitched back on in order for a portrait to be done, was this an explanation given out at the time to cover it all up, as he was a nephew of James II
Some time ago at the Tower of London the guide told a group of us that after the execution it was realised there was no portrait of the Duke of Monmouth. As he was of royal blood (if there was any left ;) ) a portrait had to be completed, and the guide said the portrait of a pale looking man is in the National Portrait gallery. If so, then the report is correct.
-
Alas Roger,it appears to be one of those myths,earlier portraits of Monmouth did exist and still do........apparently.
-
Digressing slightly George, i thought the Yeoman warders at the Tower were there to give accurate information to visitors. If so, and this guide didn't shouldn't be be dealt with as appropriate to his place of work?
-
Off with his head ;D ;D ;D
-
I know two portraits had been done earlier which is why I suggested that it was all a cover for having him exhumed. No doubt if enough money changed hands his body would be 'spirited' away (If that is the right word ;D)!
Normally I doubt if executed bodies would be allowed to be taken away by the family but money opens many doors!
-
I wouldn't have thought there would be much left to sew back on after spending a few months on a spike outside the Tower.
jim
-
Jim,reading this about the execution,I don't think there would be much to sew back on.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/macaulay/england/monmouth.htm
-
I notice he did in fact tip the executioner...I suppose a refund would have been out of the question.
jim
-
I notice he did in fact tip the executioner...I suppose a refund would have been out of the question.
jim
Injury Lawyers For You weren't around then I suppose ;D
-
Maybe they sewed his head back on to avoid litigation...."there you are madam good as new".
-
I notice he did in fact tip the executioner...I suppose a refund would have been out of the question.
jim
Injury Lawyers For You weren't around then I suppose ;D
Even if they had been contacting them would have posed some interesting difficulties for Monmouth! :) ;)
-
If only the rebellion had succeeded things might have been a lot less bloody than was the case under James VII.
Monmouth's illegitimacy would always have told against him but the last Tudors were all tainted with that, in the eyes of some folks.
Skoosh.
-
If only the rebellion had succeeded things might have been a lot less bloody than was the case under James VII.
Monmouth's illegitimacy would always have told against him but the last Tudors were all tainted with that, in the eyes of some folks.
Skoosh.
And many of the earlier Plantagenets too. The royals don't do DNA tests, I wonder why?
-
Yeh, one of my ancestors was married to one of the Georges before he married again bigamously :-X
How are your Brownes coming on Jim, found any skeletons in the closet or headless horseman yet? ;D
-
I thought I might have found him.one Theadocius Boughton of Stoneleigh,he was murdered by his cousin but by poison rather than shortage of breath.
There's also a Banning in the family.So that's Browne,Boteler & Banning.
jim