#Property Essex | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fleetwoodhunteruk · 1 month

Text

Empty Properties in Essex: Understanding the Issue and Solutions

Essex, a county known for its picturesque landscapes and vibrant communities, faces a growing concern: empty properties. These vacant buildings not only detract from the aesthetics of neighborhoods but also pose economic and social challenges. In this article, we delve into the issue of empty properties in Essex, exploring its causes, impacts, and potential solutions.

What Defines an Empty Property?

Empty properties, also known as vacant properties, are buildings left unoccupied for an extended period. These can range from residential homes to commercial spaces and industrial premises. In Essex, these properties often become eyesores, attracting vandalism, squatting, and other forms of antisocial behavior.

What Contributes to the Empty Property in Essex?

Several factors contribute to the prevalence of empty properties in Essex. Economic downturns, changes in property ownership, and insufficient investment in renovation or maintenance can leave buildings vacant. Additionally, demographic shifts, such as population decline or migration, may lead to surplus housing stock in certain areas.

What are the Impacts of Empty Properties?

The presence of empty properties has far-reaching consequences for both communities and the local economy. They decrease property values in surrounding areas, discourage investment, and create a sense of neglect. Moreover, vacant buildings can pose safety hazards, attracting illegal activities and posing fire risks.

What Initiatives Exist to Address the Issue?

Local authorities in Essex have implemented various initiatives to tackle the empty property problem. These include incentives for property owners to bring vacant buildings back into use, such as grants or tax relief schemes. Additionally, councils may enforce Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) to take over neglected properties and put them to productive use.

What Role Can Regeneration Projects Play?

Regeneration projects play a crucial role in revitalizing areas affected by empty properties. By investing in infrastructure, public spaces, and affordable housing, these projects breathe new life into communities. They create employment opportunities, attract businesses, and improve the overall quality of life for residents.

What are the Challenges in Addressing Empty Properties?

Despite efforts to combat the issue, several challenges persist. One major obstacle is the lack of funding for renovation or redevelopment projects. Additionally, legal complexities, such as ownership disputes or planning restrictions, can hinder progress in bringing empty properties back into use.

What Can Property Owners Do to Help?

Property owners play a pivotal role in addressing the empty property issue. Instead of leaving buildings dormant, they can explore options such as leasing or selling at affordable rates. Engaging with local authorities and community groups can also provide valuable support and resources for refurbishment efforts.

What Does the Future Hold for Empty Properties in Essex?

While the empty property problem poses significant challenges, there is hope for improvement. Through collaborative efforts between government agencies, property owners, and community stakeholders, Essex can reclaim its vacant buildings and transform them into vibrant assets for future generations.

In conclusion, empty properties in Essex present a multifaceted challenge with wide-ranging impacts on communities and the local economy. By implementing targeted interventions, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing regeneration efforts, Essex can address this issue and create thriving, sustainable neighborhoods for all residents to enjoy.

#Empty Properties in Essex

0 notes

futurehomes-realestate · 11 months

Text

So appreciative of our wonderful clients. If you’re looking to buy or sell, let the Future Homes Team help make the process as smooth and effortless as possible.

The Future Homes Team & Dominion Lending Mortgages Office: 519.322.1234 | 1.800.677.5810 Robert Direct: 519.322.8177 Kattie Direct: 519.322.9282 Michelle Direct: 519.322.1234 x 10 #windsoressexrealestate www.future-homes.com/testimonials

#homesforsale #houseforsale #property #dreamhome #realestate #leamington #essex county #homebuyers #homeselling

1 note · View note

queen-paladin · 5 months

Text

disclaimer: yes, I am complaining about cheating in media. Because, yes, writers have the freedom to create what they want but if the morality in creation is free for all forms of media, but no piece of art is exempt from criticism, and that includes criticism on personal moral grounds. I betcha if I said Harry Potter is good, actually, everyone on here would flood my blog telling me I am wrong because of the author's intense prejudice. That being said, I am criticizing cheating in fiction, If you don't like that, don't interact

So often lately I see period dramas where the husband cheats on the wife (ex. Poldark, The Essex Serpent, Queen Charlotte, The Great)...and not only do I despise the cheating trope with every fibre of my being to where I get panic attacks when I consume the media...but specifically with period dramas...

Do these writers not understand the greater implications of a husband cheating on a wife during these periods? More than just the humiliation and heartbreak in the case of a loving, good marriage just like it is today.

In the Western world, probably until certain laws were enacted in the 1900's, if a woman married a man, she was legally his property. She had no legal identity under him. She was financially dependent on him. Any wages she made would automatically go to her husband. Her children were also not legally her children- they belonged to the father. If the husband died, even if the wife was still alive, the children were legally considered orphans.

Women could only rarely gain a divorce from their husbands. In England in the mid-1800's specifically, if a wife divorced a husband she had to prove he had to not only cheat but also be physically abusive, incestuous, or commit bestiality. On the other hand, a husband could divorce a wife just for being unfaithful. Because, kids, there were sexual double standards.

Getting married was often the endgame for a lot of women during that time. Sometimes you couldn't make your own living enough- marriage was a way to secure your entire future financially, with more than enough money to get by. If you were a spinster and middle class, you could get by with a job. But if you are an upper-class lady, the one thing a lady does not do is get a job and work. So upper-class spinsters basically were dependent on their families to get by (ex. Anne Elliott in Persuasion faces this with her own toxic family). As strange as it sounded today, marriage gave them some freedom to go about since a husband could be persuaded sometimes more easily than a father and one had a different home, their servants, etc. A husband was your foundation entirely for being a part of society, and standing up as your own woman.

So if a husband cheated on a wife, that was a threat to take all of that away.

He could give a lot of money that could be used to support his wife and children to the mistress. He could completely abandon said wife for the mistress. And since the wife legally couldn't get a job as he still lived, she would be dependent on any money he would said- and that is IF he sent over any money.

He could take her to court and publicly humiliate her to get a divorce away from her (look up the separation of Charles and Kate Dickens, he would call her mentally ill and say her cooking was bad and that she was having more children than they could keep up with all while having an affair and divorcing her to be with the misteress). And even if the wife was the nicest, more proper, goodest, more rule-abiding never-keeping-a-toe-out-of-line lady in town...as a man, the law was default on his side (look up Caroline Norton's A Letter to the Queen which details exactly that, the poor woman had her earnings as a writer taken by her husband and was denied access to her children from said husband)

So yeah...even if there was "no love" between them (and anytime the wife is portrayed as too boring or too bitchy so He HaS tO cHeAt is brought up is...pretty victim blamey)

So yeah. Period drama writers, if you have the husband have an affair ...just consider the reality of these things and address them, maybe punish the husband for once (*gasp* men facing consequences for their actions?!?!!), and if not, just please find other options and other tropes and devices for once.

#tw: cheating #cw: cheating #period dramas #feminism #history #books #tv shows #movies #television #tv series #costume drama #period film #queen charlotte #the essex serpent #the great #poldark

342 notes · View notes

ukrfeminism · 1 year

Text

5 minute read

TW: descriptions of sexual violence from the start

“For two hours he tortured me, his hands were everywhere. I thought rape was inevitable, I wondered whether I’d get out alive. We were in an empty property on a quiet cul-de-sac and he’d completely overpowered me.” These are the words of a female estate agent who was attacked by the seller of a property she had gone to value in Essex.

Hers is not a lone voice. Women in the property industry, who frequently visit empty homes alone — either to value them for sellers or to show prospective buyers around — are speaking out about the dangers.

Now, 30 years after the estate agent Suzy Lamplugh was declared dead (seven years after going missing on a viewing in Fulham, west London, with a man who called himself “Mr Kipper”) and 31 years after the Birmingham estate agent Stephanie Slater was kidnapped during a house viewing, women are saying it still isn’t safe to do their job.

Only 22 per cent of estate agents and letting agents, male and female, feel safe when on viewings, while 82 per cent say estate agent safety isn’t taken seriously enough — according to a survey of 150 agents across the country Allan Fuller an estate agent in Putney, southwest London.

The case of the estate agent in Essex, who spoke anonymously to The Times, was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service last year, two days before coming to court. “I am furious, he had the money to hire a big shot lawyer. I feel let down,” she says. “It has been absolutely horrendous. It had a massive effect on my whole life: my relationship of 15 years broke down and I ended up on antidepressants and having panic attacks every time I went on a valuation.”

Although she has now moved agencies, she continues to work as an estate agent. “I thought, if I give up my job, he has won again — and I love my job.” However, she insists her female colleagues carry rape alarms, check in before and after house visits, and follow strict protocols about leaving doors open in properties and never getting into cars with sellers or potential buyers.

Fuller says: “There is a common misperception in the industry that ‘it won’t happen to me’.”

The responses to Fuller’s survey show that it does happen. One female respondent who works in the West Midlands wrote: “I recently valued a property and met with a man accused of domestic violence and I have never felt so uncomfortable in my life. He proceeded to show me an over-stair cupboard and said that there was ‘enough space for three dead bodies’. I left quickly after that.”

Other comments included:

“During a repossession the owner climbed into the loft and was threatening with a knife. Police had to taser him twice to safely remove him.”

“Carrying out a market appraisal with a gentleman who revealed he was due in court the next day to be charged with rape.”

“I believed a viewer was carrying a knife on a viewing, they were trying to get me into a certain room. The vibe wasn’t good, so I managed to email my office an SOS. Two members of staff came and pretended to be the next viewers.”

And: “I was covering a valuation and the person locked me in without me knowing and as I went to leave he went to hug me. I had to duck under his arm and unlatch the door quickly to get out.”

It’s not just on visits that workers are vulnerable, though. One estate agent told The Times how she was assaulted by a prospective buyer while working alone in an office in Oxford on a dark December evening. After being cornered, by the photocopier, she says she managed to “thump him in the windpipe” and run for help. He was arrested and charged. She now insists all her staff carry rape alarms and follow strict safety rules in and out of the office.

Fuller says he makes staff safety a priority too, sending his staff on self-defence courses — “one tip I picked up was if a man is making an unwanted move on a woman she should look as if she’s about to be sick, they soon back off” — issuing rape alarms, fitting CCTV and insisting that prospective buyers and sellers visit the office, verify their name and address, and are captured on camera before going on viewings.

Claire Lewis, 65, was an estate agent in Putney at the time Lamplugh went missing. She says: “Everyone was so shocked, we’d been getting into cars with prospective clients and going on viewings with men. It never occurred to us that anything could happen. That all changed and we suddenly became much more aware.”

However, she now worries for her daughter, Charlotte Dale, 34, a part-time estate agent in southwest London. “Generally things seem more dangerous for women even though they have mobile phones. Whereas in the past men acted in isolation — now they receive validation and encouragement on the internet,” Lewis says.

The estate agent from Essex, who was tortured for two hours, says she wants to see a national campaign to draw attention to the dangers: “Some estate agents seem to care more about protecting assets, with money laundering checks etc, than they do about protecting their staff. This has to change.”

212 notes · View notes

fideidefenswhore · 8 months

Note

ngl thomas boleyn wanting elizabeth to get his lands got me. i wish people gave him a chance and didn't act like he was some monster. so why didn't elizabeth get them? and is it true henry "seized" hever once thomas' mom was dead? shouldn't that have gone to mary?

It got me, as well.

I'm of two minds on his reputation, however, as far as that goes...I don't think he deserves to be villainized to the extent he has been (he was human, and protective and proud of his family, and cared for them, as several details of evidence suggest, such as Anne's letter from 1513 which he kept 'perfectly preserved'), but also, I do like...get it? He was a flawed man, he was not above throwing his weight around when he felt challenged or disrespected, and his lack of support for his literal daughter when she was widowed (until his other daughter and the King intervened to pressurize him to provide more financial support) cannot be defended.

Also while I do love Mackay's biography and believe it was illuminating, my take was that the apologism went too far. While Boleyn did not sit on the actual jury which condemned two of his children, he did sit upon the one which condemned the lower-ranking men of 'adultery with the Queen'. This was his choice, as much as the narrative of "refuse the King at your own peril" (or, indignatio princips mors est, iyw) remains strong, more often (until it came to issues of supremacy), one refused the King at the loss of their own status, favour, preferment, perhaps wealth and land.

Tl;dr "Thomas Boleyn did not have a choice" gives me the same feeling of when "AB, JS, KH, KP" (sometimes even COA and Anne of Cleves...weirdly) "didn't have a choice in marrying Henry VIII" is said. I'm wary of minimizing the agency and choice of, particularly, those of the highest echelons of society, esp. when we're dealing with an era where victims of brutality of comparatively little agency (Mark Smeaton, etc.) also numbered significantly. The Tudor nobility had more access to choice than most people of their time.

As far as Hever, I don't believe it was seized after the death of Margaret Butler, it does seem to have gone to Mary, although I don't really have a firm grasp on the details (like, my understanding was that it was granted to Anne of Cleves, so...?):

"With no heir, Thomas' properties reverted to the Crown, including his earldoms. Prior to his death, it seemed that Thomas had begun to reconcile with his only living daughter, Mary. Within weeks [of the death of Thomas Boleyn], Thomas' daughter Mary Stafford and her husband [...] received much of Boleyn's property portfolio, including Hever and Rochford Hall." Among the Wolves of Court: The Untold Story of Thomas and George Boleyn, Lauren Mackay

The official Hever Castle website, however, states that James Boleyn inherited Hever and sold it to the crown in 1540 (which would explain how it could be granted to Anne of Cleves, I suppose, although it seems like there's a gap here...perhaps Mary sold it to her uncle, who then sold it to the crown?)

It was specifically Thomas Boleyn's lands in Essex he had wanted to grant to his granddaughter ('begun' to reconcile is maybe key here, he had, for one, not really been supportive of Mary since she was widowed in 1528, and only was when pressurized to do so, & usual precedent would suggest they should have gone to Henry Carey, but then, Elizabeth had not been reinstated into the succesion by the time he made this will, which was probably a factor in his decision, there was no guarantee she'd be entitled to any lands after the King's death in that context); and I haven't had much luck in finding out if they were ever granted to Elizabeth once she reached her majority. The only mention of her ever even holding any property in Essex (while 'Lady Elizabeth') I managed to find was dated during Edward VI's reign and refers to an exchange, not an inheritance:

"In the reissued patent letters of April 1551, Elizabeth lost her Northamptonshire holdings of Apethorpe, Wadehowe, Woodnewton, Tansor, and Yarwell, which as noted earlier had formed something resembling a local concentration of properties. In exchange, she acquired the nearly inaccessible manors of Norton Bawson in Devon and Bysleigh in Gloucestershire, along with some small manors in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Essex." From Heads of Household to Heads of State. The Preaccession Households of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, 1516-1558. by J.L. McIntosh.

#anon #he was multi-faceted tho i will not deny that #i just get a little. meh at the 'no choice '#there are certainly more salient examples of fathers of the time who put their own interests above that of their children #(francois i; for example; as actually boleyn observed. had the funds to pay for the ransom for his sons 2x over)#and i also do think we have do consider he found himself in some fairly unprecedented circumstances #but he was very similar to AB in that 'perhaps a figure more to be admired than liked' sort of way?#erudite and personable and gracious and towards those he loved; affectionate and caring #ratioed against his capacity for wrath against those he believed wronged him or his family and relentless ambition

19 notes · View notes

wishesofeternity · 9 months

Text

"...Elizabeth Woodville had a particular advantage where both she and other members of her family held land. Horrox asserts that "Elizabeth Woodville's possession of the duchy of Lancaster lands in [Hertfordshire] had resulted in a marked Woodville presence here by the end of Edward IV's reign", and reasons that by 1475, strengthened by marriage with several important families, "the queen's interest in East Anglia was regarded as the main instrument of royal authority there". This "interest" was not solely the queen's, because many of the individuals connected to her were also connected to the court in some other way: "It is more accurate to see the East Anglian affinity as a court connection rather than a narrowly Woodville one."

...The priorities of landholding are evident in Elizabeth Woodville's most complicated marriage manoeuver. In 1466 the queen married her son Thomas Grey to Anne Holland, the only heir of the duchess of Exeter, who had been granted a sizeable estate in her own name in 1464. In 1469, letters patent placed the queen herself fourth in line to these lands, behind Anne Holland, the latter's heirs, and any other heirs of the duchess' body -- these last two steps being at this point wholly hypothetical. But in 1472 the duchess divorced her long-absent husband and not long after married Thomas Saintleger. The couple were childless when Anne Holland died, also childless, in 1474, meaning the queen now stood to inherit the estate directly. Elizabeth immediately remarried Thomas Grey to yet another heiress, Cecily Bonville. The next year, however, the duchess bore a daughter, Anne Saintleger, who was still alive when the duchess herself died in January 1476 (at which point a separate provision of the 1469 patent gave the queen £60 per year from the duchess' fee-farms). This left the queen without access to the estate until 1483, when she paid the king 5000 marks (£3333 13s. 4d.) for the marriage of Thomas Grey's son to Anne Saintleger, an arrangement which needed to be shored up by act of Parliament*. It is not difficult to see why Elizabeth coveted this inheritance, of which poor timing in the end deprived her. Many of the 33 properties lay in eleven counties where she as yet had no exclusive holdings, especially in the West Country, including two hundreds in Devon and two in Somerset, and several others lay strategically near her own manors. Surely it is plausible that the queen desired more than the potential income. Land meant influence, a fact which informed the behaviour of the fifteenth-century nobility in no small measure.

Not all of the queen's lands necessarily came by direct grants. Elizabeth Woodville bought the Fitzlewis manors in Essex, worth 1000 marks (£667 6s. 8d.) per year, from Richard duke of Gloucester, though by 1482 she had sold them. Nor were all the queen's properties exclusively hers; joint arrangements had their advantages. Even shared profits and rents might handily supplement the queen's income, especially where the holdings were extensive. A single demise and quitclaim in 1476 from William Huse gave Elizabeth Woodville, with ten others, a share of 65 properties, among which were several towns and 14 hundreds in Sussex, and knights' fees from ten others. The benefits would not be solely financial. The Huse transfer included the town of Seaford and the hundred of Poynings, which most likely encompassed the queen's own manor of Endlewick in Sussex, the hundred of Grinstead around her manor of East Grinstead, and the manors of Dysworth and Seagrave near her town of Godmanchester in Leicestershire. Such overlaps could serve to build up a local affinity, especially in the case of the Huse transfer, which also involved the queen's brother and son. In addition, the shared properties gave her a foothold in areas where she had no land of her own, such as Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Shropshire.

The queen might also enter into temporary arrangements, such as custodies. The attainted Tresham lands were granted jointly to Elizabeth Woodville, the bishop of Salisbury (Richard Beauchamp) and William Dudley, dean of the chapel of the household, in 1475, along with a smaller set of manors of the earl of Wiltshire. These were to be held during the minority of the earl's heir, who did not come of age until at least 1487; this enhancement of the queen's presence in Northamptonshire thus lasted to the end of the reign. The same year Elizabeth obtained a seven-year share of five manors and one entire hundred in Oxfordshire. Finally, while the queen received her dower lands only for life, obviously to prevent Crown land from being alienated, her interest in shared properties often included her "heirs and assigns", potentially providing her with bargaining chips in land or marriage deals, or to provide for extended family. The Exeter lands would have fallen into this category.

The queen might influence internal matters on her properties ... But her relationship with her tenants was probably quite distant most of the time. A potential exception of some consequence was the act of 1482 which granted Elizabeth Woodville "the wardships and marriages of the heirs of her tenants of so much of the Duchy of Lancaster as she [held] to her own use". Although this sweeping legislation was repealed by Richard III and not revived, it indicates that for the queen to have control not only over her properties, but over their inhabitants, was not unthinkable.

Derek Neal, “The Queen’s Grace: English Queenship 1464-1503″

*This wasn't just for the marriage of her grandson but was also meant to provide manors and lands from the Duchy of Exeter to her second son Richard Gray.

#historicwomendaily #history #elizabeth woodville #wars of the roses #15th century #english history #queue #the act of 1482 is very interesting #it was less than a year before edward's death #it would be interesting to speculate what would have happened with regards to that had she been queen longer #as the obvious result of it would have been to strengthen her control and authority over her lands #and by extension the crown's power

22 notes · View notes

edwardseymour · 3 months

Note

In you other blog you talked about your ideal JS/Seymours tudor adaption.May i ask you if you have some ideas on how to characterize Js and her family?

so! i have unfortunately lost my entire mind writing this. hope you can understand. i’ve just done the parents for now, and will get around to adding thoughts on the rest later!

john seymour

i think it’s interesting that he spent “more than a year in limbo” wrt his title/inheritance — with his father dying in mid may 1492, and there being an inquisition to confirm an heir to somerset a few weeks later. (was there some uncertainty/challenge over succession?) he doesn’t seem to have been granted his whole inheritance (including his mother’s lands) until 20 december 1493. this early instability could lend itself to characterisation; giving john a crucial wound that would propel him within the narrative.

john was the eldest son of his parents, his mother the first wife of his father, yet the potential uncertainty in his claim to somerset could well be characterised as a fundamental insecurity. this would be compounded by the loss of his first born son (in 1510, not even a year later he would be listed as one of the pallbearers and mourners at the funeral of henry’s son in 1511, as well as being listed as one of the mourners), losing another son who dies young, and two more children in 1528 to a pandemic. of course, he had other children — but it’s still the loss of children, within a patriarchal and (late) feudal system.

no doubt it would impact his relationship with his family, and peers. that same sense of instability, within a transactional and increasingly competitive system, would surely define his career. numerous complaints against him can be found in star chamber cases; female plaintiffs brought forward accusations that john, sheriff and justice of the peace for wiltshire, was undermining them. one woman accused john of “orchestrating the disruption to her property [...] her jointure”, and john has been described as a man “who had a reputation for being overbearing”. david loades describes his career as marked by “periodic litigation”. he also potentially had what loades describes as “a falling out with wolsey”, where personal and political perhaps merged — because in mid 1530 john served on the commission to assess what lands and goods wolsey held in wiltshire, and more definitely he had some kind of dispute with william essex in 1528 (the same year two of his children died), describing him to thomas cromwell as “enemy essex” in 1531. then, of course, there's the suggestion that he had a quasi-incestuous affair with his daughter-in-law, katherine filliol, although of course unsubstantiated contemporaneously, and only suggested in the 17th century marginal note (“repudiata, quia pater ejus post nuptias eam congovit”).

so, domineering chauvinism, entitlement, and a deep-rooted insecurity. ambition, but without creativity; this is not a man noted for revelry. he impresses henry vii enough for honours, and is on good terms with henry viii. he’s competent and successful militarily — knighted for valour at blackheath — and he was made knight of the body by the end of henry vii's reign. he was present at the field of cloth of gold in 1520 (where he was permitted eleven servants when the standard allowance for knights was four), and accompanied henry viii to meet emperor charles v in 1520, and was present when charles visited england in 1522. david loades suggests that john might have been something of a father figure to the young henry viii. he was on good terms with thomas cromwell, and in 1532 he was created a groom of the privy chamber, “perhaps at cromwell's intercession, because we know that he was infiltrating his friends into privy chamber positions by that time”. this is the man who built a huge estate, fit to accommodate a king since henry viii visited multiple times, only for wolf hall to be abandoned within a generation. this is the man who dies before seeing his daughter become queen of england. sound and fury signifying nothing.

for me, the seymours truly are the meeting point between the irrational agitation and recklessness that comes with mediocrity and stagnation (they’re gentry but they’re not standouts, everything about them is neatly acceptable but boring and unadventurous/unambitious) and the intense anxiety and paranoia of deep-rooted unsettled instability. all of this is something that festers under a feudal, patriarchal system. this, for me, would be the thematic throughline for the family — but would be exemplified in john seymour.

primary sources: david loades, the seymours of wolf hall

margery wentworth

it’s rather sweet that john was granted wardship to her father, before they were betrothed to each other. following her birthdate being presumed to be in the late 1470s, she would have been in her mid-teens when she married john. so, a young match. it’s not known exactly when her eldest son, john, was born but edward was born around 1500 and the couple have a pretty reliable pattern of annual pregnancies following, so it’s reasonable to assume that john was born around 1599. given that they married in 1494, we can maybe infer that they waited before fulfilling their conjugal obligations. when he died, she never remarried.

she's descended from edward iii, so “it was through her mother that jane seymour was able to claim a drop of royal blood”, as well as kinship to other notable families. the pair would have been raised and educated under margery's parents: her father was henry wentworth, himself the only son and heir of philip wentworth. henry would be taken prisoner (released two years later), and his father philip would be executed, as part of the lancastrian army, in 1464. so, that similar sense of uncertainty carries over to margery's family too, as well as a connection to the war of the roses and the destabilising, disruptive environment that fundamentally exposed the weaknesses of the system they worked within. henry would receive rewards under henry vii, being invested as knight of the bath and knight of the body, and possibly introduced his son-in-law to court and nurtured his early court prospects. it is likewise potentially what established margery at court, where she seems to do well for herself. margery and her husband were on a pardon roll when henry viii succeeded to the throne, for reasons that are unknown, and she would ultimately become the muse of the romantic court poet, john skelton.

surely there must have been something about her, for her to have been singled out as an inspiration for john skelton. compared to flowers (primrose — a symbol of youth, new beginnings, in antiquity a symbol of aphrodite, and columbine — symbolic of doves/the holy spirit), margery is described as “benign, courteous, and meek”, so an idealised sixteenth century woman. he describes her as virtuous (“virtues well comprised”), with “wordes well devised”. that and the fact that she was a muse for john skelton lends itself to her being a successful gentry lady if not much of a court presence — indeed, she doesn’t seem to return to court, even when her daughter becomes queen. but what is charming is the fact that margery was a romantic ideal for the man who would tutor her future son-in-law; bringing it full circle to when margery hosted henry viii at wolf hall in 1535, about to court her daughter jane, would be delicious.

so that is the base of how i would characterise margery: “never a prominent figure […] content [with] supervising the education of her children and running the household” at wolf hall. considering wolf hall would host henry and queen anne boleyn in 1535, it is reasonable to conclude she was confident in this role. beyond this, i think we could reasonably characterise her as stolid, and practical: her daughters received “the solid teaching befitting a future country gentlewoman rather than that of a great lady in the making”, including music, hunting, embroidery and management of the estate. her daughters wrote in (it seems like) secretary hand, with elizabeth seymour’s described as “neat and confident signature in a masculine ‘secretary-hand’, not the usual female sprawling italic” by diarmaid macculloch. so, it would not be unreasonable to characterise her as pragmatic, or sensible. i'd love to tie that into the nature imagery that lends itself to the seymours as caretakers of savernake forest, which is followed up with subsequent allegories between jane seymour and nature (trees, branches, flowers — tudor roses blooming on seymour hawthorn bushes), especially in opposition to the popular idea of the boleyn ‘continental gloss’.

she would ultimately lose four children young, and later outlived jane and thomas. indeed, she endured several losses in quick succession, with two children lost in 1527, her husband dying in 1535, and jane dying in 1537. she witnessed thomas’ disgrace and execution, the loss of her daughter-in-law katherine parr (so reminiscent of jane's death) as well as the early death of her granddaughter mary. she also witnessed edward’s fall from grace. it feels like a very rapid familial rise and fall, not with a bang but a whimper.

it’s not clear what her relationship was like with her family. her will lists her son-in-law, clement smith, as a witness, which suggests that she was living with him and her youngest daughter, dorothy, at the time of her death. her will details that she made mention of several family members. reciprocally, upon her death an act of the privy council details that her son edward proclaimed his “natural love towards [his mother]” in requesting to “honor her funeral remembrance as his own affection might have leaded”, or otherwise commemorate her with a period of formal mourning and a state funeral, which was snubbed out of pettiness towards edward, at this point in disgrace. it suggests genuine affection for his mother, the king’s grandmother. it makes it poignant, then, that edward seymour was not included in his mother’s will. it’s also not clear if edward vi was particularly close to margery, but the council dictated that “private men should reserve their private sorrows to their own houses, and not to dim the gladsome presence of their prince with such doleful tokens”.

primary sources: elizabeth norton, jane seymour: henry viii's true love; william seymour, ordeal by ambition

#they could tell boccaccio a tale; those sinners at wolf hall #john seymour #margery wentworth #seymour adaptation tag

7 notes · View notes

edwardslovelyelizabeth · 6 months

Note

I want to know if Elizabeth Woodwell should have some jewelry or something like that? Why didn't she have any inheritance before she died?

She was given gifts by Edward in form of jelwelry most notably for the birth of their eldest daughter Elizabeth of York (What would be around 125 pounds now was spend by the King on a jeweled ornament presented to the Queen “against the time of the birth of our most dear daughter Elizabeth”) and no doubt she had other jewels as befitting the Queen though we sadly have no surviving accounts of those. Also according to Edward IV's will from 1475 he specifically let her have several of the items of his houshold including tapestries, plates, jewelry as well as his precious books (below excerpt from the said will):

"Item as to all oure goods, that is to say beddyng’ arrases tapestries verdours stufF of oure houshold ornaments of oure Chapell with boks apperteignyng to the same, plate and jouelx excepte, excepte also such part of the same ornaments and boks as we shall herafter dispose to goo to oure said Collage of Wyndesore, we wol that oure said wifF the Quene have the isposicion therof without let or interruption of the other oure Executours, to thentent that she raay take of the sarae such as she shall thinke to bee moost necessarie and convenient for her, and have the use and occupation therof during her liff, and after her deceasse oure said son the Prince hooly to have and enjoye that part."

As to why she didn't have anything before she died - she didn't have any inheritance before she married Edward (that was actually the reason why she met with Edward/petitioned him - because her relatives swindled her and her sons of her first husbands inheritance). After Richard seized power and declared her marriage invalid and her children bastards she lost the right to any inheritance either. It was commonly expected that after the death of the King Dowager Queen would be provided for usually by the new King (her son most commonly), but since Elizabeth’s marriage was proclaimed null she lost the status Dowager Queen. She was given annuity by Richard (and there is actually no evidence that her ever paid that sum to her) and was put in charge of his squire meaning she lived by the pension that Richard has appointed to her and not any revenue of her own. When Henry Tudor became king and married Elizabeth’s daughter Elizabeth of York he reinstated Elizabeth Woodville as Dowager Queen, her children as royal princesses. Elizabeth was given some property that she would take revenue from as the Queen Dowager (giving her a grant for life of six manors in Essex and an annual income of £102). However in February 1487 all the lands granted to her were taken away from her by the King to be given to her daughter Elizabeth of York (it’s most likely was because the new king didn’t have enough money to support the new established court and Elizabeth Woodville was likely not against transfering her income to her own daughter). Elizabeth Woodville was given annuity by Henry instead and retired in Bermondsey Abbey. Hence when she died other that that annuity she had nothing of value to leave to her children.

#elizabeth woodville #edward iv #15th century #wars of the roses #medieval #anonymous #ask

8 notes · View notes

ireadyabooks · 13 days

Text

Love Stories That Make You Feel Like: 🖤💀😱🗝️ 🌹

Don’t get it twisted, YA romance isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. These romance stories can get quite dark before you even know what’s happening. But maybe that’s exactly what you’re looking for! A romance full of brooding love interests, morally corrupt characters, and maybe even a splash of hair-raising dark academia vibes. If you’re willing to take a chance on these hauntingly seductive reads, then check out a list of some of our favorite dark and twisted YA romances below!

Your Blood, My Bones by Kelly Andrew

A seductively twisted romance about loyalty, fate, the lengths we go to hide the darkest parts of ourselves . . . and the people who love those parts most of all.

Wyatt Westlock has one plan for the farmhouse she's just inherited -- to burn it to the ground. But during her final walkthrough of her childhood home, she makes a shocking discovery in the basement -- Peter, the boy she once considered her best friend, strung up in chains and left for dead.

Unbeknownst to Wyatt, Peter has suffered hundreds of ritualistic deaths on her family's property. Semi-immortal, Peter never remains dead for long, but he can't really live, either. Not while he's bound to the farm, locked in a cycle of grisly deaths and painful rebirths. There's only one way for him to break free. He needs to end the Westlock line.

He needs to kill Wyatt.

With Wyatt's parents gone, the spells protecting the property have begun to unravel, and dark, ancient forces gather in the nearby forest. The only way for Wyatt to repair the wards is to work with Peter -- the one person who knows how to harness her volatile magic. But how can she trust a boy who's sworn an oath to destroy her? When the past turns up to haunt them in the most unexpected way, they are forced to rely on one another to survive, or else tear each other apart.

Start reading Your Blood, My Bones now!

A Darker Mischief by Derek Milman

The Honeys meets The Secret History in a work of dark academia like no other -- a boarding school thriller about a queer teen from Mississippi who finds himself swept into a world of old money, privilege, and the secret society at the heart of it all.

When Cal Ware wins a scholarship to an elite New England boarding school, he's thrilled to leave his past behind. Back home in Mississippi, he was the poor, queer kid who never fit in. But at Essex Academy, he'll be able to reinvent himself. Or so he hopes...

But at Essex, Cal's classmates only see his cheap clothes and old iPhone. They mock his accent, and can't believe he's never left the country, or heard of The Hamptons. Cal, at his breaking point, is about to give up and return to Mississippi when he learns about a secret society on campus -- the key to becoming Essex royalty.

Cal knows he's not exactly secret society material, but to his surprise, he finds an unlikely champion in the handsome, charismatic, and slightly dangerous Luke Kim. As they get swept up in the mystery and glamour of the Rush process, Cal finds himself falling in love for the first time.

But as the initiation rituals grow riskier -- and increasingly nefarious -- Cal must decide how far he's willing to go, and how much of himself he's willing to sacrifice, to save everything and everyone he cherishes most. Because nothing at Essex -- not even Cal's first love -- is quite what it seems.

Start reading A Darker Mischief now!

Sixteen Souls by Rosie Talbot

The spooky, swoony YA debut by BookTok star Rosie Talbot (@Merrowchild) -- the "TikTok Made Me Buy It" sensation dubbed Heartstopper with ghosts! Perfect for fans of V. E. Schwab and Aiden Thomas.

Sixteen-year-old Charlie Frith has problems. His crush is dating someone else, his sisters have glitter-bombed his prosthesis (again), and he's a seer-of-spirits in York, the most haunted city in England, and all his friends are ghosts.

To make matters worse, it seems that famous spirits are mysteriously vanishing from York's haunted streets and alleys. Charlie is determined to stay out of it, but Sam, the irritating new seer in town, expects him to track down who -- or what -- is responsible and uncover the dark purpose behind these disappearances.

But when one of Charlie's ghostly friends vanishes, he has no choice but to face the shadows -- and his growing feelings for Sam. The boys must be willing to risk it all to save York’s spirits, because this adversary will stop at nothing to complete their devastating plan. Afterlives are at stake, and Charlie is running out of time . . .

Start reading Sixteen Souls today!

Beastly Beauty by Jennifer Donnelly

From New York Times bestselling, award-winning author Jennifer Donnelly comes a revolutionary, gender-swapped retelling of Beauty and the Beast that will forever change how you think about beauty, power, and what it really means to follow your heart.

What makes a girl "beastly?" Is it having too much ambition? Being too proud? Taking up too much space? Or is it just wanting something, anything, too badly?

That's the problem Arabella faces when she makes her debut in society. Her parents want her to be sweet and compliant so she can marry well, but try as she might, Arabella can't extinguish the fire burning inside her -- the source of her deepest wishes, her wildest dreams.

When an attempt to suppress her emotions tragically backfires, a mysterious figure punishes Arabella with a curse, dooming her and everyone she cares about, trapping them in the castle. As the years pass, Arabella abandons hope. The curse is her fault -- after all, there's nothing more "beastly" than a girl who expresses her anger -- and the only way to break it is to find a boy who loves her for her true self: a cruel task for a girl who's been told she's impossible to love.

When a handsome thief named Beau makes his way into the castle, the captive servants are thrilled, convinced he is the one to break the curse. But Beau -- spooked by the castle's strange and forbidding ladies-in-waiting, and by the malevolent presence that stalks its corridors at night -- only wants to escape. He learned long ago that love is only an illusion. If Beau and Arabella have any hope of breaking the curse, they must learn to trust their wounded hearts, and realize that the cruelest prisons of all are the ones we build for ourselves.

Start reading Beastly Beauty now!

The Good Neighbors by Holly Black

From the amazing imagination of bestselling author Holly Black and acclaimed illustrator Ted Naifeh, comes an astonishing graphic trilogy set in a faerie world, full of mystery, intrigue, and romance.

Rue Silver's mother has disappeared... and her father has been arrested, suspected of killing her. But it's not as straightforward as that. Because Rue is a faerie, like her mother was. And her father didn't kill her mother -- instead, he broke a promise to Rue's faerie king grandfather, which caused Rue's mother to be flung back to the faerie world. Now Rue must go to save her -- and defeat a dark faerie that threatens our very mortal world.

Start reading The Good Neighbors now!

#ireadya #yabooks #Your Blood My Bones #Kelly Andrew #A Darker Mischief #Derek Milman #Sixteen Souls #Rose Talbot #Beastly Beauty #Jennifer Donnelly #The Good Neighbors #Holly Black #Ted Naifeh #ya romance #dark romance #twisted romance

3 notes · View notes

myhauntedsalem · 8 months

Text

Essex County Penitentiary Hauntings

Known as either the Essex County Penitentiary or the Newark Street Jail, is the oldest public building in Essex County, New Jersey, and its state of disrepair and neglect stands as a testament to that fact. It was built in 1837 on the new Morris Canal to replace an older jail/courthouse that burned to the ground 2 years prior. In a cost-cutting move, it was decided that the new jail would stand separate from the courthouse and that it would hold offenders from both the county and the city of Newark.

While the original jail was built in a pastoral campus-like setting, with the inmates encouraged to stay active, the Newark Street Jail was a stark box-like structure built for housing, not rehabilitation.

It has seen a few renovations over the years. In the 1890s 112 new cells were added to the complex, and the total of cells just before the building was left to rot stood at 300. It served as Essex County’s main jail until 1970, when a new jail was constructed. It then became home to the Essex County Narcotics Bureau for a short while. After they relocated, the building was abandoned.

Essex County Penitentiary was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1991, but no effort has been made to repair or even preserve the property.

So far as paranormal activity is concerned, the Essex County Penitentiary is a hotbed of action, as can be expected of a facility of such an age and purpose. There are uneasy feelings, cold spots, shadow figures, and disembodied footsteps, and such reports are common for those brave enough to explore the derelict structure.

Former security guards tell the story of an “Old Man Brown” who still watches over the cell blocks. It is believed that this is the spirit of a former Warden. There are many places where people get the feeling that they are not alone in small spaces, or that they are being watched, and these instances are usually attributed to the ghost of Old Man Brown.

Perhaps concurrent with this haunting, people can often hear phantom footsteps close to the old Warden’s quarters, which was always patrolled regularly by guards.

Perhaps the most flamboyant story about Essex County Penitentiary is that about the inmate in the Central Hall who managed to commit suicide by lighting himself on fire. How the man managed to pull this off is still a mystery, but the fire had consumed 90% of his body. There is still a charred mark on the concrete outside the cell in the shape of a man in the fetal position, which is typical in burning deaths.

The spirit that is said to haunt this section of the jail seems to be angry and violent, as this is where abusive EVP’s have been captured and pushes and hair-pulling have occurred.

There have also been reports of phantom sounds that resemble heavy machinery that have been heard in the area of the prison that served as the workshop.

The Essex County Penitentiary has grown in esteem since it was featured in a televised investigation on the SyFy series “Ghost Hunters”, but it is still a perilous place to visit because of the disrepair and the fact that as an abandoned structure, it has become a gathering place for vagrants and small-time criminals.

#Essex County Penitentiary Hauntings #essex county penitentiary #haunted prisons #haunted locations #ghost and spirits #ghost and hauntings #myhauntedsalem #haunted salem #paranormal

16 notes · View notes

elite-clearance · 1 month

Text

Construction site - Clearance & Removal available

#construction #suffolk #norfolk #essex #london #property clearance #recycling #clearance #house removal #land clearing

0 notes

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Note

Are you descended from Wat Tyler? In any event unless it is tongue and cheek considering all the other targets you could go after why hold onto a grudge for that long?

I'm not descended from Wat Tyler, I'm descended from someone who worked for him. According to family lore, my ancestor who fought in the Great Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was named Adam Attewell. As it turns out, there is a brief mention of Adam in the historical record that allows us to learn quite a bit about Adam's life.

Adam Attewell was a London butcher - which means we know he was a guildsman - who shows up in the judicial record as someone who during the very earliest days of the Revolt was an emissary from the people of London to the peasantry of Essex, calling on them to rise up in rebellion and promising that London would rise in support. He then seems to have later been "very prominent in the troubles in the capital." This pattern of behavior suggests that Adam was more than likely a member of John Ball's illegal organization known as the Great Society, part of the activist core that supported Wat Tyler's uprising from the beginning.

After Wat Tyler and his rebel forces seized the city of London, burning John of Gaunt's Savoy palace and seizing the Tower of London, they forced King Richard II into negotiations that revolved around a few key points:

the abolition of serfdom.

equality before the law.

redistribution of Church property to the people.

a purge of evil councilors from the King's councils, most notably including John of Gaunt's conservative faction.

a general amnesty for all rebels.

When William Walworth murdered Wat Tyler at Smithfield and then turned the London militia against Tyler's horrified supporters, he enabled King Richard II to abrogate all of his concessions and promises to the revolutionaries. This included the amnesty for rebels - John Ball would be drawn and quartered in King Richard's presence, royal troops would be sent out to suppress the later rising in the North of England and hunt down any rebel leaders who escaped the massacre in London - so it's an ominous sign that my ancestor's mention in the historical record comes from the "Essex indictments and the Sheriff's reports."

While I consider RIchard II to be an odious oath-breaking tyrant, on June 15th 1381, the king was utterly a broken and spent political force driven into total capitulation. It was William Walworth's use of murder and military repression that shattered the leadership of the Great Peasants' Revolt and allowed the royal government to organize a successful counter-revolution.

So that's why I include William Walworth on my list, for single-handidly setting back the cause of freedom and equality in England for several hundred years and facilitating the probable execution of my ancestor for treason against the crown.

#history #great peasants revolt #wat tyler #john ball #team smallfolk #john of gaunt

29 notes · View notes

scurvyoaks · 9 months

Text

Fine Pair of Federal Carved Mahogany and Inlaid Satin Birch Side Chairs, Attributed to John and Thomas Seymour, Boston, Massachusetts.

35 x 19 1/4 x 19 in., seat height 18 3/4 in.

Note: This pair of chairs represents a fourth variation of Thomas and John Seymour's curved diamond back chairs. The same style is illustrated in Robert Mussey Jr.'s work, The Furniture Masterworks of John & Thomas Seymour (Salem, Massachusetts: Peabody Essex Museum distributed by University Press of New England, 2003), on pp. 388-9, no. 127. Mussey explains this chair is "the sole example found during [his] study that was designed for full over-the-rail upholstery."

Sold at Sotheby's New York in 2004, these chairs were from The Collection of Alice and Murray Braunfeld. A single chair, of the same style and attributed to John Seymour, is in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). It is listed as a gift of Mrs. Murray Braunfeld in 2006 (M.2006.51.21). Although it is rare that sets of these chairs remain, given the fragile nature of their construction, it is probable this pair and the single chair at LACMA are related.

Two similar pairs of chairs probably by Thomas and John Seymour sold at Sotheby's New York in Property from the Collection of Dr. Larry McCallister, September 22, 2022, lots 98 and 99.

According to Sotheby's catalog note: "The masterful execution and carefully conceived design of this side chair places it among the most sophisticated examples of scroll-back chairs made in Boston. The exquisite combination of light and dark woods, reeding and carving, and rectangles, quarter ellipses and diamonds results in a tour de force of the Federal aesthetic.

The same overall configuration, wood combination and exceptional craftsmanship is found on chairs attributed to John and Thomas Seymour of Boston, whose furniture epitomizes the height of workmanship in Boston during the Federal period. Several similar sets of seating furniture are known. Once is represented by two settees and a pair of side chairs at Winterthur and a pair of side chairs at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, all with out-turning front legs (see Charles Montgomery, American Furniture, The Federal Period, nos. 37-9, pp. 90-2 and Edwin Hipkiss, M. and M. Karolik Collection of Eighteenth-Century American Arts, 1941, no. 116). A chair at Bayou Bend and one at Yale University also with out-turning front legs offer another variation (see David Warren, et al, American Decorative Arts and Paintings in the Bayou Bend Collection, 1997, F157, p. 99 and Patricia Kane, 300 Years of American Seating Furniture, 1976, no. 154, p. 174). Additional examples of the form representing two different sets are in the Kaufman Collection and the Henry ford Museum (see J. Michael Flanigan, no. 48, p. 134-5 and Vernon Stoneman, A Supplement to John and Thomas Seymour, Boston, 1965, no. 57).

Another side chair of this type in the Kaufman Collection displays ring-turned reeded tapering legs related to those on this pair of side chairs (see Flanigan, no. 47, p. 132-3). Similar legs appear on an octagonal center table attributed to the Seymours that sold at Sotheby's, Sinking Spring Farms: The Appell Family Collection, January 18, 2003, sale 7867, Lot 1265.

Condition

Both in overall good condition with expected nicks and wear. One with small repairs to the back splat. Both with old repairs and replacements to the upper section of the front legs. New corner blocks underneath the seat. Finely carved and structurally sound.

Stair Galleries, Americana sale 8/10/2023.

#federal furniture

12 notes · View notes