Was there a conspiracy?
This is not a usual family story. Members of the Percy family ancestry include;
- Charlemagne King of the Franks, Emperor of the West,
- The Dukes and Counts of Brabant and Louvain,
- William de Percy (known as Algersons) an intimate friend of William the Conquerer,
- The English Barons de Percy,
- Sir Harry Percy (known as Hotspur),
- Thomas Percy the Gunpowder Plotter,
- The House of Percy New Zealand (Petone Percy Scenic Reserve).
The prelude to the contrived succession
After the death of Josceline Percy, 11th Earl of Northumberland without male heirs, it appears little, perhaps even no effort was made to identify a true male heir to the titles and estates. That there were surviving males in the line of Percy centred on Beverley (the Cadet Percy Beverley line), whose blood was not affected by any attainder is certain.
So was there a conspiracy to ensure that the title did not pass to the Beverley line, and if so, why?
A number of points indicate the existence of a such a conspiracy.
1) When James Percy of Dublin claimed his right to the titles he was met with a brick wall of resistance.
- He was declined permission to see the Countess of Northumberland (widow of the 11th Earl) or to enter into any discussion with Henry Champion who was the ‘caretaker’ of the Percy family records at Sion House.
- Ditto for the Dowager Countess (mother of the 11th Earl) who would be guardian of eventual heir, Elizabeth Percy, when the ‘11th’ Countess remarried. If there was no evidence to suggest that anybody other than Elizabeth was the true heir why refuse James Percy the opportunity to view the records? By doing so would have brought a certain finish to the inheritance riddle. By not doing so the allusion of chicanery is created.
2) The Dowager Countess sent an ‘address’ to the House of Lords Privileges Committee on behalf of Elizabeth and herself, in which she complained “that the one calling himself James Percy ..... had assumed to himself the titles of Earl of Northumberland and Lord Percy, to the dishonour of the family”. This is a statement of half-truths and innuendo not designed to be pro-Elizabeth’s right to the titles etc. But anti that of James. James had never referred to himself as either Earl or Lord Percy.
3) The Dowagers’ agents sought to denigrate James’ claim by coercing a William Percy to bear ‘false witness’ but, under examination, William admitted he was to speak ‘as the agents told him, for he knew nothing but what they told him.’
4) The use of the plea ‘Privilege of Peerage’ by various agents of the Dowager Countess during defamation trials brought against them and the Dowager by James Percy. As a result of these pleas the plaintiff’s own lawyers refused to plead his case!
5) The apparent ignorance of the Dowager Countess/ Countess of Northumberland of other lines of the Percy family. All records of the Percy family were held both at Sion House and the College of Heralds so could have easily been surveyed.
- As stated above access was denied to them in the case of James Percy, as well as to Brenan in his research from “The House Of Percy.”
- The page dealing with Thomas Percy’s lineage (the Gunpowder Plotter) in the records held at the College of Heralds was removed when James Percy wished to see them.
- A number of Beverley line were known to the 9th and 10th Earls.
| i) | Alan Percy, M.P. for Beverley (1599-1603) the brother of Thomas (above), apparently forced into retirement and died in seclusion (1632) as result of Thomas’ deeds. |
| ii) | Thomas was known to have been a distant cousin of the 9th Earl and was employed by him! That he was a relative would have been known by all. |
| iii) | Edward Percy, son of Alan (above), had been a secretary of the 9th/10th Earls. On his tombstone at Petworth he is described as a ‘gentleman.’ His brother, Josceline, was a page in the service of the 9th Earl, and was noted as playing cards at Essex House when his uncle (Thomas) called there on the eve of the ‘Plot.’ |
| iv) | Josceline Percy’s son, Alan of Beverley, was the probable male heir. He died unmarried in 1686, some 16 years post the death of the 11th Earl. |
| v) | Robert Percy, son of Thomas is listed in the “Dictionary of National Biography” as marrying Emma Meade of Taunton in 1615 and leaving issue. |
And therein lies the crux of the enigma. It appears most likely that the ‘Establishment’ would never condone the transfer of any titles/lands to a descendant/relative of a Gunpowder Plotter. Of course there was a second reason – money. If the titles were to go to the Beverley line the Dowager Countess would lose all her privileges / income and may have been forced to remarry. But having little or no dowry to effect a contract she would not have been a very ‘saleable’ commodity. Her answer was to ensure that no such transfer to the Beverley line took place and she enlisted the considerable aid of her brother James Howard, 3rd Earl of Suffolk, and Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Carlisle (who was married to Anne, daughter of Edward, Lord Howard of Escrick) to force her case through the House of Lords. Howard of Escrick was the son of Thomas Howard, the 1st Earl of Berkshire, the brother of Theophilus 2nd Earl of Suffolk! The Suffolk/Berkshire lines of Howards are a branch springing from Thomas Howard, the 4th Duke of Norfolk!
That the Dowager Countess was unscrupulous is a given. She was also an imperious intriguer. Both of her parents had been convicted for gross frauds upon Charles I and heavily fined for their dishonesty. Josceline’s widow – a countess as well as the daughter of an earl (Southampton) had to stand when in her company, and of course, there is more than some suspicion that the dowager ‘sold’ Elizabeth to one undesirable husband after another. Such a woman was more than capable of manipulating the succession to line her own pockets.
Near the conclusion of Brenan's publication ' The House of Percy' circa 1902 there appears to be the following statement:
| "But now that parish registers, wills, deeds and the like are being searched with a thoroughness and a disinteredness unknown to the antiquaries of past generations, it is by no means impossible that a male hier of Northumberland may, even at this late day, succeed in proving his claim to the dormant Earldom of 1377". |
The first point to consider is that Brenan believes the Earldom of Northumberland granted to the Seymours post the marriage of Elizabeth Percy (1740) constituted a new creation of the honour. Therefore, he seems to argue, the 1377 Earldom of Northumberland was still a viable honour and could still be granted to a legitimate Percy claimant. In essence a dormant title but one that was not extinct.
The second point refers to the actual inheritance granted to Elizabeth Percy. Was the statement above actually a cryptic reference that he regarded the transition from the Louvain/Percy family to the Seymour/Percy family to have been, if not a total perversion of the law regarding inheritance as it was then judged, then at least a misleading interpretation of it?
There can be little doubt that Brenan was of the opinion that previous chroniclers had been less than honest in their assumptions. His use of the phrase: "disinteredness unknown to the antiquaries of past generaltions" suggests just that. When coupled with the inference that his access to certain documentation had been restricted it could be argued that there were those who wished him not to be able to ascertain the full facts of the matter. It also suggests that some of those: "antiquaries of past generations" may not have been so disinterested or impartial as true seekers of the truth should have been. They may actually have written what they had been told, or paid, to write.