SEARCH SITE

The Title Claims

THE TITLE CLAIMS AND THE VESTED INTERESTS INTRIGUES c. 1700

When Josecline Percy the 11th Earl of Northumberland died in 1670, so too did the ancient Louvain-Percy male bloodline in the main Percy line of descent. The bloodline still survived in the Cadet Percy Beverley line however, where it had been taken earlier c.1500 by the 5th Earl’s brother Josceline, grandfather of Thomas Percy the “Gunpowder Plotter” and his brother Alan Percy of Beverley. Upon the death of the 11th Earl, the Dowager Countess of Northumberland (guardian of the Earl’s daughter, Lady Elizabeth Percy) and her powerful supporters denied that the old male bloodline still existed within the Beverley line and refused access to records held at Alnwick Castle—records vital for the Beverley line claimants to provide their lineage and their claims. There were two subsequent claims for the vacant Earldom from within the Beverley line and both claimants were given derogatory descriptions . “The Trunk maker” (James Percy) a wealthy Dublin merchant, and “The Stonecutter” (Francis Percy) who later became Mayor of Cambridge. He was a sculptor and from the “Gunpowder Plotters” side of the Beverley line.

This is a short analysis of the problems that the first claimant, James Percy encountered and which would also confront the second claimant, Francis Percy of Cambridge :

CASE OF JAMES PERCY “THE TRUNK MAKER”
CLAIMANT OF EARLDOM OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Although no evidence was brought forward by this man to verify any link to the parent line of Percy of Northumberland, there were ‘hints’, that those who wished to protect the interests of Lady Elizabeth Percy, only surviving child of Josceline Percy, 11th and last Earl of Northumberland, did so in the most nefarious manner.

Included in these practices were :

1. The repeated refusal by the Dowager Countess of Northumberland (Elizabeth’s guardian) to allow access to the Percy family records held by her agents. If they had shown that James could not have been the true heir-male, why not allow his request? It is known that there were males in a cadet-line of Percy who were alive at the time of Josceline’s death (Alan Percy of Beverley ?) but they did not claim the Earldom.

2. The use of William Percy, an illegitimate half brother of James, by the Dowager Countess’ agents to cast doubt on James’ legitimacy and to force him into expensive litigation.
3. The use of “Peer’s Privilege” by agents of the Dowager Countess, as their defence when James Percy laid charges of libel and defamation against them in the court of Kings Bench. Percy’s counsel then refused to plead his case for fear of prosecution for breach of privilege.

4. The litigation against James Percy for breach of contract brought against him by his former counsel. This was probably prompted by the Duke of Monmouth who, had James’s claim to the Earldom been successful, would have lost considerable income as the estates, that had reverted to the Crown after Joseceline’s death, and he had been granted by his father (Charles II), would have returned to James Percy. Others had vested interests in this area as well.

5. A lack of interest in the case by Charles II when petitioned by James Percy in 1678 because of a) 4 above, and b) the fact that the petition happened to coincide with an attempt by the King to gain Elizabeth Percy’s hand in marriage for George Fitzroy, another of his natural sons, who had recently been created Earl of Northumberland.

6. The “missing” leaf from a book dealing with the Earls of Northumberland held at the Herald’s College (in the time of Sir Edward Walker Garter King), which James Percy claimed dealt with the cadet branches of the House of Percy. This, if true, is especially interesting for it would have included the line of Percy started by Josceline, fourth son of Henry,4th Earl of Northumberland, a line not affected in blood by the attainder of 1537. The senior male of this line at the death of Josceline, 11th Earl of Northumberland was Alan Percy of Beverley, “said to have been de jure 12th Earl of Northumberland,” who died in 1688 without male issue.

It is Alan Percy’s younger brother John, the next in descent, who is mentioned in the Table III chart as “whose eventual fate is unknown”, that could be our proven John Purse/y of our Taunton St Mary Magdalene line.

THE OLD LONDON COLLEGE OF ARMS c.1700

It is likely that the powerful vested interests (King Charles II, the Dowager Countess of Northumberland, The Duke of Monmouth, Parliament and others) intrigued to pervert the natural line of Louvain-Percy male descent and that the College of Arms, its Garter Principal Kings of Arms and its Heralds became compliant to their demands - better to lose one’s dignity than one’s heads!

I can understand that it was seen as too soon after the Gunpowder plot for a descendant of Thomas Percy to accede to the Earldom, but to kill off such an eminent male bloodline (carrying the DNAs of Charlemayne, Brabant, Louvain and England’s Barons de Percy) while it still existed in the Cadet Percy Beverley line, was avarice in the extreme. There were other ways for the vested interests to achieve their aims.

THE HERALDS AT THE OLD LONDON COLLEGE OF ARMS

From Brenan’s c.1900 book “The House of Percy”, Brenan elaborates on the Herald’s part in the tearing out of the page in their records dealing with the descent of Thomas Percy, the Gunpowder Plotter, and particularly who his father was. He writes “also that the portion of genealogy sought” (on the missing page) “dealt with the descent of Thomas Percy of the Gunpowder Treason, the obliteration of whose name seemed a commendable action to the ultra-loyal Heralds of the Jacobean era”.

Brenan’s preface in his book also included “… a desire for uniformity in the 2nd volume has rendered that portion of The House of Percy less severe (rigorous) in these matters than a rigorous historian might wish… the present Duke of Northumberland (1902) objected to further search among the documentary collections at Alnwick castle and Sion house as unnecessary.” Evidently Brenan must have found and written of things in the book that could have been injurious to the Main Percy line.

SIR EDWARD WALKER GARTER PRINCIPAL KING OF ARMS
AT THE OLD COLLEGE OF ARMS

Acting for the 1st claimant James Percy of the Beverley Cadet line of Percy, who claimed the Earldom and Estates of Northumberland.

The vital missing leaf that had been torn out of the official records at the Herald’s College of Arms pertained to the Cadet Beverley line and dealt with the lineage of the Gunpowder Plotter. The page following the one torn out continued “ard Percy who married and had issue.” There are only three different first names in the Main and Cadet lines of Percy at the time that I can find, (and logically the Garter Kings and Heralds) that end with the syllable “ard”. They are Richard, Guiscard and Edward. Sir Edward Walker, The Garter King of Arms, and James Percy the claimant, decided on Sir Richard Percy, 5th son of the 5th Earl. When this misdirection of descent was later proved to be impossible, James Percy laid the blame upon the Heralds College and accused Sir Edward Walker of deliberately misleading him.

Deliberately misled or not The Trunkmaker was bankrupted and one of the only three possible names had been eliminated—Richard.

SIR WILLIAM DUGDALE GARTER PRINCIPAL KING OF ARMS
AT THE OLD COLLEGE OF ARMS

Acted for the second claimant Francis Percy “The Stonecutter” of the Beverly Cadet line who claimed to have been de jure 8th Earl of Northumberland. Francis Percy of Cambridge (later Alderman and Mayor (1709) of Cambridge) said at the time when it was not politic to do so, that Thomas Percy “The Plotter” was his great grandfather. Sir William Dugdale who was a practiced genealogist consulted the records at the College of Arms and drew up what turned out to be another false genealogical chart for Francis Percy’s “claim” where he named Guiscard Percy brother of the 7th and 8th Earls as the Gunpowder Plotter’s father. This was visibly untrue to anyone who looked at the records of the main line as Guscard Percy died in early childhood aged seven years. So now two of the three only possible names had been eliminated. The Garter King should have known at the time that the Plotter’s father would have to have come from the same line as Francis his great grandson, the Beverly Cadet line, not the main Percy line. The Plotter’s father was of course Edward (the 3rd and only correct name) of Beverly, son of Josceline, brother of the 5th Earl of Northumberland. Francis Percy of Cambridge didn’t know this of course and bowed to Sir William Dugdale’s superior “skills”. As he was not a wealthy man he withdrew his claim completely after the Garter Principal King of Arms wrote him a patronizing final letter :

“Sir—this is to let you know that this day I received your kind present of fowl, for which I return you my hearty thanks, but am not pleased that you have put yourself to the charge and trouble thereof, assuring you of my willingness to do you any service I can without expectance of any such thing from you; it being both just and reasonable that all generous minds should readily serve you in this business to their utmost.
“But as affairs stand at present in that noble family, I must tell you it will not be seasonable to move for you, the distractions and perplexities wherein all of them are being so exceeding great. When I find a proper opportunity, be confident I will not forget you. Should I move in it now it would be the near way to spoileit utterly. You must therefore expect with patience, and be confident that you have not any acquaintance that will more cordially endeavour to serve you than
“:Your very affectionate friend,
“W.M.Dugdale”.

The records to prove the above claim were mutilated by the Heralds at the London College of Arms. S.K.P. 2009.

So those were the insurmountable obstacles that the Beverley Line’s claiming Percys had to face and overcome to prove their case.

(a) The intrigues of the powerful vested interests including Charles II.
(b) Two consecutive claimants given consecutive impossible mis-directions of descent by the two consecutive Garter Principal Kings of Arms, Sir Edward Walker and Sir William Dugdale.
(c) The Heralds’ mutilation of records held at the College of Arms, pertaining to Thomas Percy the Gunpowder Plotter’s line of descent, which also prejudiced Francis Percy’s claim.

SO WHO WAS THE RIGHTFUL 12th EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND?

It was either :

1. John Percy of Beverley and our proven John Purse/y of Taunton being one and the same person. Descent would then come through the senior and direct side of the Beverley line.

2. Francis Percy of Cambridge (later Mayor) whose male line died out two generations later.

3. Thomas Percy of Taunton (St Mary Magdalene line), 2nd son of Robert Percy the Gunpowder Plotter’s only son. The male line through the Plotters first grandson Francis Senior (St. Mary Magdalene) and his son Francis of Cambridge “who claimed to be de jure Earl of Northumberland” died out two generations later and descent then reverted back to Thomas of Taunton the second of the Plotter’s grandsons. Thomas (of our St Mary Magdalene Parish) or his brother James could also be the father of our John Purse/y).

All of the above fulfill :

(a) Our over 200 year old provenances of descent through the Gunpowder Plotter’s (and his brother Alan of Beverley) family line, and to carry the extinct Louvain-Percy male bloodline and its rights of descent.

(b) Genealogical support through repetition of first names (Edward, Thomas, John, Frances etc) in both the Beverley line and the Taunton St Mary Magdalene line.