History Podcasts

Somerset IV PCE-892 - History

Somerset IV PCE-892 - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Somerset IV

(PCE-892: dl). 850, 1. 184'6~ b. 33'1", dr. 9'5~, s.
15.7 k.; cpl. 99; a. 1 3", 6 14 mm.; cl. PCE - 27)

The fourth Somerset (PCE-892) was laid down on 28 October 1942 by Willamette Iron & Steel Corp. Portland, Oreg., launched on 1 May 1943; sponsored by Mrs. J. C. Dowling, and commissioned on 8 July 1944, Lt. Comdr. John F. Allen, USNR, in command.

Somerset sailed to San Diego and conducted shakedown training from 25 July to 27 August in the San Francisco Bay area. The escort then sailed to the Aleutian Islands and operated as a patrol ship from 2 September 1944 to 1 June 1945. She was in the Puget Sound Navy Yard from 2 June to 12 August being converted into an amphibious control ship.

Somerset sailed to Hawaii and entered the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard for conversion into a weather ship on 20 August. She was ordered to the Marianas and assigned duty as a weather station ship. Using Guam as a base of operations, Somerset provided open ocean

weather services between Guam, Kwajalein, and the Philippine Islands until August 1947. On the 13th, she sailed for the gulf coast, via Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and the Panama Canal.

Somerset arrived in New Orleans on 22 October 1947; was assigned to the 8th Naval District as a Naval Reserve training ship, and served in that capacity until 1955. In March 1955, she was placed out of commission, in reserve, with the Atlantic Reserve Fleet.

Somerset was struck from the Navy list on 1 June 1961 and transferred to the Republic of Korea on 13 December.

Warwick the Kingmaker

Warwick ‘the Kingmaker’ was a nobleman, a military commander in the Wars of the Roses and an influential politician who would by stealth, cunning and daring be in virtual control of the country for many years until his death at the Battle of Barnet in April 1471.

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick

He was born Richard Neville on 22nd November 1428, the eldest son of the 5th Earl of Salisbury. He later acquired the title 16th Earl of Warwick through his advantageous marriage to Lady Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, the 13th Earl of Warwick. This was a marriage that proved to be strategically powerful for Neville a marriage involving not only a title, but also an inheritance of great fortune and land. In 1449 Richard Neville became jure uxoris (by right of his wife) Earl of Warwick.

However the newly titled Earl of Warwick soon found himself in conflict with the Duke of Somerset. The Duke had been granted control of Glamorgan, until then held by Warwick, by King Henry VI. King Henry then fell ill and Somerset, a favourite of the king, virtually took control of government. For this reason Warwick decided to support Richard Duke of York’s bid to oust the incapacitated king.

Henry VI

The Duke of York was married to Warwick’s aunt, Cecily Neville, and the subsequent struggle for royal control became a personal matter for Warwick who would fight alongside his father in numerous battles against the king. These battles became known as the Wars of the Roses, a pivotal historical conflict fought between two rival branches of the royal family, the House of Lancaster (red rose) and the House of York (white rose).

In 1455 the First Battle of St Albans resulted in a Yorkist victory, the death of Warwick’s rival Somerset and the capture of the king. This did not however lead to the Duke of York gaining power as he would have hoped. Warwick remained one of his most loyal allies and as a reward for this support, Warwick received the prestigious position of Captain of Calais.

Margaret of Anjou, wife of King Henry VI

Warwick’s strong position did not go unnoticed by Queen Margaret who viewed him as a very real threat to the throne. He was very politically astute and used his time in Calais to form good diplomatic relationships. He was cultivating an impressive persona as a man of sound military might with contacts across Europe. He would later return to England with members of his garrison to meet up with his father and the Duke of York.

Unfortunately for York, Warwick and Salisbury, in battle their men proved less willing to fight against the king than they had first thought. In an effort to regroup after defeat at Ludlow, the three men went their separate ways, buying themselves time to come up with another plan of attack.

A year later in July 1460, the Yorkist forces were victorious at the Battle of Northampton. King Henry VI was captured, a decisive turning point in the war.

The Duke of York entered parliament and in a shockingly provocative act, placed his hands on the throne, as if to say this seat is mine.

The onlookers to this scene were outraged and the subsequent agreement called the Act of Accord decreed that York would only inherit the throne after Henry VI had died. This did not satisfy either party and inevitably, the war raged on.

The Battle of Wakefield was for Warwick the Kingmaker a personally significant battle. Margaret of Anjou, the Lancastrian queen had sent a large force of around 6,000 men, including the Duke of Somerset and Lord Clifford, to attack the Yorkist forces at Sandal Castle.

They had been enjoying Christmas festivities, which would soon end in bloodshed. The battle saw York lead his men down from the safety of the castle straight into a trap in which the Duke of York was killed. Meanwhile, his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland also lost his life whilst making an attempt to flee.

Warwick tragically suffered the loss of his father, Salisbury, who had been captured and subsequently executed, along with his younger brother Thomas. In a macabre show of victory, the severed heads of the Duke of York and Earl of Salisbury were then paraded around.

Further defeat on 17th February 1461 at the Second Battle of St Albans led to Yorkist retreat, leaving behind King Henry VI who is said to have spent the battle sitting under a tree, singing.

Warwick’s response as “kingmaker” was to travel to London as quickly as possible in order to announce that Richard’s son Edward would be king. All that was needed was to decisively defeat the Lancastrian forces of King Henry VI.

Battle of Towton

The Battle of Towton proved to be one of the largest and bloodiest struggles of the war. The queen fled to Scotland along with King Henry VI. The Yorkist forces proclaimed victory and Edward headed for London as royal victor. In June 1461 he was crowned King Edward IV of England at Westminster Abbey.

Meanwhile, what did this mean for Warwick? For the first couple of years of Edward IV’s reign, Warwick assumed the role of virtual ruler. He was in the strongest position he had ever held. Not only did he continue to serve as Captain of Calais but he was given the position of High Admiral of England and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The positions he held were numerous, filing many important administrative roles, a right-hand man of the king so to speak. Not only that, but he had inherited a personal fortune after the death of his father and in 1462, he also inherited his mother’s land and the Salisbury title.

Victory had never tasted so sweet for the Earl of Warwick. He was amassing a great personal fortune as well as holding enormous power in various administrative and political positions, whilst also serving as a military leader, winning favour and popularity for his naval victories off the coast of Calais.

Marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville

Unfortunately, the good relationship between Edward IV and Warwick quickly soured when Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville whilst Warwick had been negotiating his marriage to Bona of Savoy. The fact that Elizabeth was also the widow of a Lancastrian knight drove a wedge between Edward and Warwick that could not be reconciled.

The seeds of discontent continued to be sewn as Warwick appeared less and less in court. To add insult to injury, the king began to favour his father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, especially when he supported a Burgundian alliance which was in direct opposition to Warwick. This was the final straw for Warwick who saw his political power dwindling in favour of Elizabeth’s father.

Warwick’s desire to have his daughter Isabel Neville marry George, Edward’s brother, was thwarted by the king who disagreed with the union. In defiance of the king, the two married in Calais, thus cementing the disloyalty and division. Warwick turned his back on Edward IV and instead turned his attentions towards the House of Lancaster.

A rebellion broke out, instigated by Warwick, that would see the death of Richard Woodville, Elizabeth’s father and one of Warwick’s main rivals. In retaliation for the betrayal he felt by King Edward IV, he took Woodville and his sons and beheaded them at Kenilworth.

Meanwhile, Edward IV had been captured during the battle and subsequently thrown into prison at Warwick Castle. The imprisonment however did not have the full backing of the elite and by 1470 Edward was released and Warwick exiled.

In one final attempt to restore his political power, Warwick sought an alliance with the Lancastrians, a bold move for someone who had fought so fervently against them during the Wars of the Roses. In 1470 Warwick returned for his swansong. He reinstated Henry VI as a puppet king, ruling through him.

Battle of Barnet

His ultimate defeat came at the Battle of Barnet, a clash which saw the “kingmaker” lose his life. His struggle for power had finally come to an end.

The Earl of Warwick had exerted his power and political will across the country, winning popularity as well as enemies. His epithet “Kingmaker” is a powerful reminder of his impact on fifteenth century English monarchy, society and politics.

Jessica Brain is a freelance writer specialising in history. Based in Kent and a lover of all things historical.

The Cole Family History

I have been tracing the Cole's for over 30 years and have most of the parishes in Devon and Cornwall. This is just a small amount of information I have found about the family or the families they married into. Please feel free to contact me if you have any Cole queries from Devon or Cornwall. Most of the Cole's in my data base are before the 1800's except my direct line. Contact me at [email protected]

They were one of the largest land owners in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset according to the records of parliament up until the late 1500's early 1600's. Most of the lands were given in marriage settlements.

I have found marriages to some of the well known families in the west country, such as the Courtney's, Arundell's, Edgecombe's, Treymaine's, Grenville, Raleigh, Drake, Gilbert, Hele, Durnford and Moreshead's there are more.

Sir Francis Drakes Grandmother was Margaret Cole, her father John was also the Grandfather of Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Richard Grenville, Joan Durnford, Joan married into the Egdecombe family

I have found a lovely website made by Howard Cole, it has a lot of history of the Cole family at

My webpage is information I have found that may not be mentioned on Howard's website.

This is some of the details I have found about the Cole's in Devon and Cornwall

Trevenna, some time a seat of the Mohuns, is now the property of Joseph Grigg. Mennabroom, formerly a seat of the Coles, is now a farm-house, the property of John Buller, Esq. Hole is the property and residence of Mr. John Rundle.

Ancient Families, of which the principal Branch is extinct, or removed, since 1620, yet some of the Descendants remain in the County.

Arms: Argent, a bull passant, Sab., within a border of the second, bezanty.

Sir George Southcote, of Shillingford, eldest son of Thomas Southcote, of Indiho, by his third wife, married a co-heiress of Cole, of Buckland Touissaints, and was ancestor of the late John Henry Southcote, Esq., who sold Buckland, and died in 1820.

From: 'General history: Families removed since 1620', Magna Britannia: volume 6: Devonshire (1822), pp. CLXXIII-CCXXV. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=50555&strquery=Cole%20of%20Cornwall

Hody, of Netheway, in Brixham. Sir John Hody, of Stowel, in Somersetshire, acquired this place in marriage with the heiress of Cole, who had a residence also at Pillesdon, in Dorsetshire his son, Sir John Hody, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, married the heiress of Jewe, of Whitfield, and Beerhall, in Devon the posterity of his elder son continued at Netheway for several descents. John Hody, Esq., sold Netheway in 1696, and left Devon. Edmund Hody, M. D., of this branch, was of London in 1750. Hugh and Arthur, two younger sons of Christopher Hody, Esq., of Netheway, who wrote their name Huddy, were of Brixham in 1620: the co-heiresses of Hugh married Burland, of Dorsetshire, and Hody, of Northover, in Somersetshire. Sir William Hody, second son of the Lord Chief Justice, was Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and ancestor of the Hody's of Pillesdon, in Dorsetshire, and Crewkerne, in Somersetshire. Robert Hody, Esq., who was of Crewkerne in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, had two sons John, the elder, who was of Beer-hall, (Thorncombe,) in Devon, left an only daughter married to Bowditch the next son was ancestor of the Hodys, of Northover, in Somersetshire of which branch was the learned Dr. Humphry Hody, archdeacon of Oxford, who died in 1706.

Arms of Hody: Argent, a fesse party, per fesse indented, V. and S. between two cottises counterchanged.

Carminow of Carminow in Mawgan (Meneage), said to have been settled there before the conquest, but not traced with any certainty further back than the reign of Henry III. The male line of the elder branch became extinct about the middle of the fourteenth century, when the coheiresses married Arundell, Trewarthian, and Petit. The coheiresses of a younger branch, which settled at Boconnoc as early as the reign of Edward III., married Carew and Courtenay about the latter part of the fifteenth century. A younger branch of the Carminows of Boconnoc settled at Fentongollan, and became possessed of very extensive landed property, which was dissipated about the year 1600. This branch, not long afterwards, became extinct the coheiresses married Salter and Cole (fn. 6) . The coheiresses of a younger branch of the Carminows of Fentongollan (settled at Resprin in St. Winnow) married Prideaux and Flamanck. This branch, descended from Walter, a third son of Walter Carminow of Boconnoc, married the heiress of Resprin and coheiresses of Trenowth and Champernon Nicholas, a younger son of this branch, married a coheiress of Wolvedon. The heiresses of another younger branch of the Fentongollan family (settled at Trenowth) married Boscawen and Herle. A third branch of this family was of Polmawgan in St. Winnow, whence they removed to Trehannick in St. Teath, at which place William Carminow, the last male heir of this ancient family, died in the year 1646 Thomas Carminow, of this branch, married the coheiress of Hilliard. The common ancestor of the Carminows married the heiress of Rawleigh. The Boconnoc branch, before the Fentongollan family branched off, married the heiresses of Glynn and Tynten. The Fentongollan branch married the heiress of Resprin and the coheiress of Trenowth, who inherited Fentongollan from Trejago.

From: 'General history: Extinct gentry families', Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall (1814), pp. CXVIII-CLXXIV. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=50618&strquery=Cole%20%20of%20St%20Neot

Cole married a coheiress of Carminow. Arms:Arg. a bull passant, Gules, on a border Sable, eight bezants.

From: 'General history: Extinct gentry families', Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall (1814), pp. CXVIII-CLXXIV. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=50618&strquery=Cole%20%20of%20St%20Neot

After treating of the Cornish families, Dr. Borlase, in one of his manuscripts, observes: "It is a melancholy reflection to look back on so many great families (fn. 22) as have formerly adorned the county of Cornwall, and are now no more the Grenvilles, the Arundells, Carminows, Champernons, Bodrugans, Mohuns, Killegrews, Bevilles, Trevanions, which had great sway and possessions in these parts. The most lasting families have only their seasons, more or less, of a certain constitutional strength. They have their spring, and summersunshine glare, their wane, decline, and death they flourish and shine perhaps for ages at last they sicken their light grows pale, and, at a crisis when the off-sets are withered and the old stock is blasted, the whole tribe disappears, and leaves the world as they have done Cornwall. There are limits ordained to every thing under the sun: Man will not abide in honour. Of all human vanities, family-pride is one of the weakest. Reader, go thy way secure thy name in the book of life, where the page fades not, nor the title alters nor expiresleave the rest to Heralds and the ParishRegister."

From: 'General history: Extinct gentry families', Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall (1814), pp. CXVIII-CLXXIV. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=50618&strquery=Cole%20%20of%20St%20Neot

Otterham - Probus

POUGHILL, in the hundred of Stratton, and in the deanery of Trigg-Major, lies one mile north-west from Stratton. The manor was given by Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, to the abbey of Clive in Somersetshire: it was sold by King James I. to George Salter and John Williams: Dr. Borlase says, that it belonged in his time to Mr. John Stanbury of Broomhill: it is now the property of Thomas Trood, Esq., who purchased it of the late John Cunyngham Saunders, Esq., an eminent surgeon in London, well known by his institution of a hospital for diseases of the eye, and his improvements in that department of surgery. This manor consists only of a royalty, which extends over the parish, there being neither lands nor rent belonging to it.

William of Worcester, in his Itinerary of Cornwall, written in the reign of Edward IV., relates that, in the year 1437, Nicholas Radford, counsel for the Lord Bonville against Thomas Earl of Devon, was slain in his own house at Poughill, by Thomas, eldest son of the said Earl, who afterwards succeeded to the title.

Flexbury, in this parish, the residence of Mr. Ralph Cole, belongs to the Rev. Charles Dayman. Maer is the property and residence of Richard Martyn Braddon, Esq. Broomhill, the property and late residence of Thomas Trood, Esq. Reeds has been lately built by John Vikry Jose, Esq., for his own residence.

The well-known battle of Stratton was fought in this parish, near the town of Stratton, on a hill called, from its having been the position of the Earl of Stamford, the parliamentary general, Stamford's Hill (fn. 38) : in the year 1713, a monument was erected on this spot, with the following inscription,"In this place the army of the rebels under the command of the Earl of Stamford received a signal overthrow by the valour of Sir Beville Granville and the Cornish army, on Tuesday the 6th of May 1643, by George Lord Lansdowne, comptroller of the household, and one of the principal secretaries of state." This monument was taken down before the memory of any one now living: the tablet containing the inscription was removed to Stratton, and fixed on the front of the market-house when some alterations were made in that building, it was again removed, and placed in the front of the Tree inn, where it still remains.

The great tithes of Poughill, which were appropriated to the priory of Launceston, have been sold in severalties those of Flexbury, Hollabury, Coumbe, and Coumbe-parks, belong to George Boughton Kingdon, Esq. The vicarage is in the gift of the crown.

During the following 200-300 years the family expanded in Devon, becoming prominent citizens through knighthood, and by marrying heraldic heiresses and thusly acquiring land(12).About the year 1500 a branch of the family became resident in Sudbury, Suffolk, and a branch of that family went to Winchester.

CORNWALLS, or EVER CORNWALLIS MANOR, which in 1086 was included under the principal manor, probably acquired its separate identity when the honour of Wallingford was seized by Henry II. Unlike Iver Manor, it remained attached to the honour until about the middle of the 14th century, when it was held of Iver Manor, this overlordship being last mentioned in 1525.

The manor was held in demesne in 1254 by Richard Earl of Cornwall,who subinfeudated it to his illegitimate son Richard Cornwall. By 1300 Richard had been succeeded by his son Geoffrey, who married Margaret Mortimer, and in 1328 settled the manor on their son Richard and his wife Sibyl in tail-male. Geoffrey Cornwall died in 1335 and Richard in 1343, his widow Sibyl surviving until 1349, when Iver passed to their son Geoffrey, aged fourteen, to whom Alan Clavering was appointed guardian in 1350. Geoffrey entered into the manor on the attainment of his majority in 1357, and died in 1365, leaving a son Brian, a minor, and a widow Cecilia, who died in 1369. On Brian's death without issue in 1400 his brother Richard Cornwall succeeded, and left as heir at his death in 1443 Thomas Cornwall, son of his son Edmund. Thomas Cornwall was attainted in 1461 and forfeited the manor, which was granted in 1468, under the name of Cornwalls Manor, to John Shuckborough and Nicholas Clevely for life. In 1473 Edmund son of Thomas Cornwall regained his father's lands, which he left to his son Thomas at his death in 1489. In 1506 Sir Thomas Cornwall alienated Cornwalls Manor to trustees, from whom it was acquired by William Haddon. The latter died seised of it in 1521, leaving a son Thomas, during whose minority his guardian William Saunders fraudulently withheld money due to the king. Thomas Haddon appears in 1540 to have mortgaged Cornwalls to the Windsors, but conveyed the reversion to Robert Wolman, who in 1568 transferred his right in it to Edward Nelson and others. William Onslow, however, claimed that Wolman had conveyed the reversion to him, and he in 1570 alienated the manor to James Heblethwaite and Percival Haddon, the latter shortly afterwards renouncing his right in it. James Heblethwaite won the case brought to settle the ownership of the estate, and conveyed the manor in 1591 to Richard Barton. By 1617 it had come into the possession of Edward afterwards Sir Edward Salter and Ursula his wife.Sir Edward settled the greater part of his estates in Iver on his son Sir William and his issue by his first wife Mary Shirland, and died in 1647. Sir William having predeceased him, the manor descended to the latter's second but first surviving son and heir Christopher Salter. On Christopher's death without issue in the following year his sister and heir Elizabeth inherited Cornwalls. Her husband Thomas Cole was fined,20 pounds as a Royalist in 1649, and on his discharge in 1653 he and his wife transferred their rights in Cornwalls Manor to Anne Salter, Elizabeth's stepmother. By 1695 the manor had come to Thomas and Richard Berenger, by whom it was sold in 1699 to Christopher Tower, who died in 1728, when it passed to his son Christopher. The latter died in 1771, leaving a son Christopher, who broke the entail in 1778. He held Cornwalls Manor until his death in 1810, when he was succeeded by his son, another Christopher, who was sheriff for the county in 1840. On his death in 1867 his estates passed to his son Christopher, M.P. for Buckinghamshire 1845, who died in 1884. His son Mr. Christopher John Hume Tower is the present owner of this estate.

"Ordered, by the Lords and Commons, &c. That Richard Cole Esquire be Sheriff of the County of Som'sett and that the Commissioners of the Great Seal of England do issue a Commission to him, to be Sheriff of the said County, accordingly."

Mabe - Maddern

Heligan belonged formerly to the Hills, and seems to have been acquired by marriage with the heiress of Fantleroy, who married the heiress of Thomas Flamank. About the middle of the seventeenth century, Heligan, which is now a farmhouse, was the seat of the family of Silly. It was sold by Miss Julia Silly (now wife of William Lyddon, Esq.) to E. J. Glynn, Esq., the present proprietor. Tredethy, some time the seat of the families of May and Lang, is now the property and residence of Francis John Hext, Esq. Penwyn, some time a seat of the Porters, is now the property and residence of Mr. William Cole, whose family have possessed it for a considerable time

De Wenn or Dewen of Gwinnear, traced three generations before 1620, married a coheiress of Culland.The present male representative of this family is Mr. James Dewen, surgeon and apothecary at Marazion. Mr. F. Cole, son of the late Captain F. Cole, of the Royal Navy, is the representative of the elder branch, by female descent.

Arms of Dewen:Arg. on a chevron - - - - three trefoils - - - -.

House of Commons Journal Volume 4
1 December 1646

The Lords Concurrence to be desired herein.

Resolved, &c. That this House doth nominate and appoint Richard Cole Esquire to be Sheriff of the County of Somersett: And that the Commissioners for the Great Seal of England do issue a Commission to him to be Sheriff of the said County accordingly.

From: 'House of Commons Journal Volume 4: 1 December 1646', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 4: 1644-1646 (1802), pp. 732-34. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=23835&strquery=Cole%20of%20Cornwall

House of Commons Journal Volume 9
10 November 1670

Ordered, That Sir Richard Cole, Richard Lamerton, and Thom. Coning, be sent for in Custody of the Serjeant at Arms, or his Deputy, for their Breach of Privilege, making a forcible Entry upon the House and Land of Mr. Henry Seymoure, a Member of this House, at Lanracke in Cornwall and turning his Servants out of Possession

From: 'House of Commons Journal Volume 9: 10 November 1670', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 9: 1667-1687 (1802), pp. 161-62. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=27217&strquery=Cole%20of%20Cornwall

Bury, of Doniton in Swimbridge.Bury in Lapford was the original residence of the ancient family of Bury, the elder branch of which remained there in 1630, but it is probable that they possessed also Coleton in Chulmleigh, which came by the heiress of Cole in the reign of Richard II. and is described as their seat in the Heralds' visitation of 1620. Doniton subsequently belonged to them. The heiress of Giffard, of Yeo, married into this family. Thomas Bury, Esq., the last heir-male, died in 1804 he married a co-heiress of Molineux, but left no issue. His widow bequeathed the estates of Bury and Coleton to Richard Incledon, Esq., now Vice-Admiral of the White, who has taken the name of Bury, and resides at Doniton, but is not the representative of the family.

Arms:Erm. on a bend, Az., three fleur-de-lis, Or.

Haccombe - Hittesleigh

HARFORD, or HERFORD, in the hundred of Ermington and in the deanery of Plympton, lies about five miles from Brent, and six from Modbury. Part of Ivybridge is in this parish.

The manor belonged, at an early period, to the Peverells, lords of the hundred of Ermington in the reign of Edward III., to the Harstons at a later period to the family of Cole. In 1622, it was sold by Christopher Cole to Sir Richard Buller and others, trustees, probably, for Williams of Stowford, whose family became possessed of it about this time. No manerial rights have of late been exercised for this estate. The manor, or nominal manor, of East Harford, alias Stowford, belonged, at an early period, to Matthew de Ivybridge, whose daughter brought it to Dymock. From the latter it passed to Bonville, and was forfeited by attainder. It became afterwards, by purchase from the crown, as Sir William Pole supposes, the property of Adam Williams, whose son, Thomas Williams, Esq., was Speaker of the House of Commons in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Speaker's mother was a Prideaux and it is probable that the learned Dr. John Prideaux, some time Bishop of Worcester (fn. 18) , born at Stowford, in 1578, was a relation of that family, although he is spoken of by Anthony Wood as of humble origin. John Williams, grandson of the Speaker, appears to have sold Stowford, in the reign of Charles I., to the Saverys, who some time resided there. From Savery it passed, not many years ago, by sale, to Mr. Dunsterville, of Plymouth and from him to Mr. Rivers, who kept the inn at Ivybridge. It is now the property of Mr. Philip Bowen, who purchased of the creditors of Mr. Rivers. The old mansion of the Williams family was pulled down, and the present house built by Mr. Rivers.

HITTESLEIGH, in the hundred of Wonford and in the deanery of Dunsford, lies about seven miles from Crediton, and about the same distance from Moreton Hamptsted.

The manor belonged anciently to the Talbots. In the reign of Edward I. it was in the Coles, who held under the Talbots (fn. 67) and afterwards, successively, in the families of London and Shilston. From the latter it passed by a female heir to Calmady. It is now the property of Mrs. Calmady, of Langdon Hall, in Wembury, the heiress of the last-mentioned family, to whom also the advowson of the rectory belongs.

Hundred Roll. There were several mesne lords between Cole and the Crown. Cole held of Talbot, Talbot of Punchardon, Punchardon of Bolhay, Bolhay of Courtenay, and Courtenay of the Crown, as parcel of the barony of Oakharapton.

Widecombe, or Withecombe Ralegh

WIDCOMBE, or WITHECOMBE RALEGH (fn. 39) , in the hundred of East Budleigh and in the deanery of Aylesbeare, adjoins the parish of Exmouth, and comprises part of that town, called Withecombe Exmouth.

The manor of Withecombe Ralegh, formerly called Withecombe Clavill, belonged anciently to the Clavills, who held it at the time of the Domesday survey, and afterwards, for many descents, to the Raleghs. In 1756 it was in the family of Bassett, from whom it passed, by successive sales, to Jackson and Cutler. It is now the property of Edward Divett, Esq., whose father purchased it in the year 1801. Westcote says that this manor was held by the service of finding the King two good arrows stuck in an oaten cake whenever he should hunt in Dartmoor. (fn. 40)

The Drakes possessed considerable property in this parish. Sir William Pole describes Rill in Withecombe Ralegh as having been in a family of that name, whose heiress married Duke, and the co-heiresses of Duke, Sokespitch, and Cole. A moiety of this estate continued, in Sir William Pole's time, in the family of Sokespitch: Cole's share had passed, by successive female heirs, to Drake and Raymond. Sir William Pole speaks also of a manor of Withecombe, which the Raymonds had inherited from Drake. The Drakes had, in 1628, the manor, or nominal manor, of Hulham, in this parish, which moiety Robert Drake, Esq., by his will of that date, gave, together with the rectory of Withecombe Ralegh, towards the maintenance of preaching ministers in the parishes of East Budleigh, Littleham, and Withecombe Ralegh, and other charitable uses. The other moiety was then in the family of Warren: it now belongs to the widow of Mr. John Warren. The manor of Broadham and Rill, within the manor of Withecombe Ralegh belongs to W. T. Hull, Esq., who resides at Marpool in this parish. Courtland, in this parish, by a late purchase, became the seat of Sir Walter Roberts, Bart. It was some time the property and residence of Charles Baring, Esq. Whimsey is the property and residence of Edward Payne, Esq.

ST. NEOT, in the hundred and deanery of West, lies about five miles westnorth-west from Liskeard, which is the post-office town about eight east from Bodmin and the same distance north-east from Lostwithiel. There is no village in this parish, except the church-town, which is large. The Archdeacon's court was held at this place, till the year 1753, when it was removed to Lostwithiel, and from thence, in 1773, to Bodmin, where it is now held.

There are holiday-fairs at St. Neot, on Easter Monday and the fifth of November. St. Neot lies on the old road from Bodmin to Liskeard. When the survey of Domesday was taken, there was a college at this place, then called Neotstow the manor of which was said to have belonged then, and in the reign of Edward the Confessor, to the canons of St. Neot.

We find no account of the manor of St. Neot till within the last thirty years, in which it has had three different owners: it was sold, by the late Elias Lang, Esq., to the late Sir John Morshead, Bart., who had also the manor of St. NeotBarrett, probably a divided moiety of the original manor, which had acquired the name of Barrett from its proprietors they now both belong to Lady Morshead, his widow.

It is probable that the Domesday manor of Fawintone, described as held by the Earl of Moreton in demesne, comprehended a large district on the banks of the Fowey, which rises in this parish, and extended to the borough of Fowey at its mouth. At a later period, the Cardinham family certainly had the manor and borough of Fowey and there appear to have been two manors of Faweton, both distinct from that and from each other, and probably both within the parish of St. Neot, as one of them is still known to be. There was, in the reign of Henry III., a manor of Faweton, which belonged to Andrew de Suleny, on whose death, without issue, it devolved to his uncle Jessery and he dying without issue, it was inherited by his sisters in moieties: one moiety passed by marriage to the Treverbyns the other, by a succession of female-heirs, as far as the reign of Henry V., to the families of Champernowne, Willington, and Wroth (fn. 1) . Sir Reginald Mohun died seised of a manor of Fawton in 1620 (fn. 2) . We have not been able to trace this manor any lower there are three small tenements of the name in St. Neot, two of which were lately sold by E. J. Glynn, Esq. (fn. 3) the other belongs to Thomas Bewes, Esq.

The manor of Faweton, alias Trenay, belonged to the Daubeny family from the reign of Edward I. (if not earlier) to that of Henry VIII., when Sir Giles Daubeny sold it to John Tubb, of whose son George it was purchased by William Bere, Esq. (fn. 4) The coheiresses of Bere married Sir John Grylls, of Court in Lanreath, and Bellott of Bochym. The Rev. Richard Gerveys Grylls possesses a moiety of this manor by inheritance, and has purchased the other moiety, which had been some time in severalties: the moieties were divided by deed in the year 1722. The manor of Polruan in Lantegloss, now the property of William Rashleigh, Esq. M. P., was formerly held with this manor. The bailiffry of the hundred of West (fn. 5) is annexed to the manor of Faweton, alias Trenay. The barton of Trenay was sold by the Tubbs to Connock we understand there are three Trenays Great and Little Trenay, united in one tenement, the property of Francis Gregor, Esq. and Higher Trenay belonging to Thomas Bewes, Esq.

The manor of West-Draynes, formerly belonging to the Carews (fn. 6) , and, at a later period to the Tillies, is now the property of J. Tillie Coryton, Esq. The manor of Pengelly belonged to Sir William Molins, who was slain at the siege of Orleans in 1428, and was inherited by the family of Hastings. In the reign of James I. it was in the Moyles: the present possessor is Francis Gregor, Esq., of Trewarthenick, who purchased it of the late Sir Lionel Copley, Bart. (fn. 7) This manor was held, in the reign of James I., by the service of providing a grey cloak for the Duke, whenever he should come into Cornwall, and delivering it at Poulstonbridge to the lord of the manor of Cabilia, whose office it was to attend the Duke with it during his stay in Cornwall (fn. 8) . A more ancient record, as printed in Blount's Tenures, assigns the service of providing the cloak to the lord of Cabilia, and that of carrying it to the lord of Pengelly. The manor of Trevegoe was in moieties, in the reign of James I. one moiety, which had been purchased by Hodge, belonged then to Matthew Veale the other, which had been in the Hungerfords, had been forfeited by attainder, and granted to Arundell, was then, by purchase from Layton, in the family of Bagott (fn. 9) : this manor now belongs to Lady Morshead. The manor of Treverbyn, which belonged to the Courtenays of Trethurfe, appears to have been dismembered: the Earl of Cork, who represents one of the coheiresses of Courtenay, possesses a small tenement of that name. The manor of Cabilla, Cabilia, or Carburrow, the property of the Honourable Mrs. Agar, (the barton of which is in Cardinham,) extends over a considerable part of this parish.

Trevenna, some time a seat of the Mohuns, is now the property of Joseph Grigg. Mennabroom, formerly a seat of the Coles, is now a farm-house, the property of John Buller, Esq. Hole is the property and residence of Mr. John Rundle.

In the parish-church are considerable remains of painted glass, containing the legends of St. Neot and other saints, as hath been already described. It is said by some of the Monkish historians, that this church was originally dedicated to St. Guevor or Guerrier, and subsequently to St. Neot, who, for many years, had led a hermit's life, and died and was buried at this place. The great tithes of this parish were formerly appropriated to the priory of Montacute (fn. 10) , in the county of Somerset: they are now, with some exceptions, the property of the Rev. R. G. Grylls, who is patron and the present incumbent of the vicarage. The tithesheaf of the manor of St. Neot-Barrett is appropriated to the repairs of the church. Two-thirds of the great and small tithes of two of the Fawtons, and some other farms, (which tithes now belong to the Duke of Bedford, and Thomas Bewes, Esq. (fn. 11) ,) were appropriated in former times to the repair of Launceston castle. There are the remains of a chapel dedicated to St. Luke, in this parish, on the borders of Alternon, a mile north-east of Dosmery pool: the ancient font remains. The estate on which this chapel stood, called Pinnock's and Luke's hills, and containing about 300 acres, has been unclaimed for many years: in 1613 it was in the Trefusis family.

John Anstis, Esq., Garter King of Arms, author of "The Black Book of the Order of the Garter," and an industrious collector of records relating to Cornwall and other counties, was born at St. Neot, in the year 1699.

Personal Ancestral File 5.2 (build is a Windows based version of one of the most widely used genealogical management programs for home computers. The software program can be downloaded free from the Internet. PAF 5.2 does not provide genealogical data. Instead, it helps users organize their family history records. It can produce, either on screen or on paper, family histories, pedigree charts, family group records, and other reports to help users in their search for missing ancestors.

This version includes changes to the individual record to accommodate the wide variety of naming conventions used throughout the world. This version will convert PAF 3.0 and 4.0 data files to its improved file format. PAF 5.2 is also available on compact disc and includes Personal Ancestral File Companion which allows users to produce additional reports and charts.

Richard Duke of York 1411 1460

Richard Duke of York, was a Plantagenet, the 3rd Duke in his line and inherited the Dukedom following his uncle Edward’s death at Agincourt at the tender age of just four. There would be little expectation that he would go on to be the founder of the House of York although he himself would never be King. Three of his descendants would reign as King,being Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III but only two would be crowned. Through the troubled and divisive times of the War of the Roses and in the run-up to the establishment of the Tudor Dynasty the impact of this man’s actions would be profound, the father of two Kings, so who was this son of York?

Richard’s father (Richard 3rd Earl of CAMBRIDGE) was implicated in the Southampton Plot and consequently paid with his life, his mother was Anne MORTIMER daughter of Roger, the 4th Earl of MARCH and was also the great granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp (the 2nd surviving son of Edward III.) Whilst Ann had an arguable claim to the throne it was not one that was definitely superior to the claims of the House of Lancaster via John of Gaunt and was not based on a continuous male line. Richard’s father had a claim because he was the grandson of Edward LANGLEY the 1st Duke of YORK and his wife Isabella of CASTILLE.

Plantagenet line from both his parents Richard of York had a strong claim to the English Throne

Richard grew-up knowing he had a claim from both his parent’s lineages and this essentially fashioned his future and the issues that caused the War of the Roses with the conflict between the Lancastrians via John of Gaunt and his own parents.

  • 1436-1437 In his early public life he served under Henry VI (Lancastrian King)
  • 1440-1445 Governor of France under Henry VI

If Henry VI had died childless Richard’s claim to the throne would have been virtually unassailable but that did not happen, instead England’s ineffectual and inert King hung-on and indirectly at the very least caused the crisis which led to the War of the Roses.

  • 1447 Richard is in effect demoted from France to Ireland, he delays taking up his new post, in effect seeing it as an exile as much as an appointment by the King.
  • The Exchequer subsequently delayed paying Richard his wages, causing financial difficulties and the forced sale of some of his manors.
  • Normandy is has been lost, causing him further loss of valuable manners and national humiliation.
  • 1450 he returns to England, blames Edmund BEAUFORT (Duke of SOMERSET) debacle and aims to replace him within the King’s counsel. But he is rebuked. 1450 He took up arms, and demanded that Somerset should be brought to trial for his misdeeds.
  • York was persuaded to lay down his arms, and was imprisoned.Shortly afterwards he was released and retired to his castle of Wigmore (in Herefordshire).

But Henry VI was reeling from the impact and threat of the CADE’s REBELLION a 1450 prelude to the circumstances that led o the War of the Roses and was led by Jack CADE. It was rebellion against the inept and ineffectual government that had lost the 100 Years War.

The cause of the common man led by the people of Kent under CADE is in effect subsequently taken-up by Richard.

  • 1452 whilst Henry has resisted having Richard’s protection foisted upon him including a parliamentary action seeking to appoint Richard as heir apparent/presumptive, Richard responds by taking up arms but then has to back down.
  • Richard of Gloucester (later Richard III), youngest son of the duke of York, born at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire on 2 October.
  • 1453/4 with Henry having had a breakdown and retiring from public life Richard is finally appointed as the King’s Protector. Henry’s heir was still in his minority. But Henry recovers supported by his wife and Richard is again deprived of his authority.
  • Richard resorts again to force aided by the alliance with the NEVILLES via his marriage to Cecily Neville, the daughter of Richard NEVILLE (the Earl of WARWICK)
  • 1453 The duke of York came forward again and was admitted into the king’s council. He obtained the imprisonment of Somerset in December.
  • 1454 Parliament met on 14 February,The king’s incapacity was agreed and the duke of York was appointed on 3 April ‘protector .’
    • King Henry’s heir Prince Edward, born on 15 March.
    • Somerset was deprived of his offices and accused of treason, but the charge was not pursued.

    Edward heard of his fathers death and prepared to move form Gloucestershire to return to London, when he heard of Jasper Tudor’s Lancastrian army. Edward, wanted to prevent Jasper Tudor and his father, Owen, from leaving Wales and joining up with the main Lancastrian army. Duke Richard’s eldest son Edward, now duke of York (and afterwards Edward IV) defeated Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, at the battle of Mortimers Cross, near Wigmore, on 2 February. The earl’s father, Owen Tudor, and several other prisoners were beheaded on the field of battle. The War of the Roses had taken on a new dimension as the Tudors had now engaged and would seek revenge in the turbulent times that were to follow.

    Whilst Richard of York is a main protagonist in the circumstances that created the firmament of the War of the Roses, whilst he had a just and arguable claim to the throne from both his parents, he would not live to be King but future Kings Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III all his descendants would be true Yorkists.

    For more on the Yorkist period in our history, the intriguing events of the War of the Roses and the machinations of the House of Lancaster York and the Tudors, click here to our Periods of History


    The signs and symptoms of benzodiazepine dependence include feeling unable to cope without the drug, unsuccessful attempts to cut down or stop benzodiazepine use, tolerance to the effects of benzodiazepines, and withdrawal symptoms when not taking the drug. Some withdrawal symptoms that may appear include anxiety, depressed mood, depersonalisation, derealisation, sleep disturbance, hypersensitivity to touch and pain, tremor, shakiness, muscular aches, pains, twitches, and headache. [11] Benzodiazepine dependence and withdrawal have been associated with suicide and self-harming behaviors, especially in young people. The Department of Health substance misuse guidelines recommend monitoring for mood disorder in those dependent on or withdrawing from benzodiazepines. [12]

    Benzodiazepine dependence is a frequent complication for those prescribed for or using for longer than four weeks, with physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms being the most common problem, but also occasionally drug-seeking behavior. Withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, perceptual disturbances, distortion of all the senses, dysphoria, and, in rare cases, psychosis and epileptic seizures. [13]

    Elderly Edit

    Long-term use and benzodiazepine dependence is a serious problem in the elderly. Failure to treat benzodiazepine dependence in the elderly can cause serious medical complications. [14] The elderly have less cognitive reserve and are more sensitive to the short (e.g., in between dose withdrawal) and protracted withdrawal effects of benzodiazepines, as well as the side-effects both from short-term and long-term use. This can lead to excessive contact with their doctor. Research has found that withdrawing elderly people from benzodiazepines leads to a significant reduction in doctor visits per year, it is presumed, due to an elimination of drug side-effects and withdrawal effects. [10]

    Tobacco and alcohol are the most common substances that elderly people get a dependence on or misuse. The next-most-common substance that elderly people develop a drug dependence to or misuse is benzodiazepines. Drug-induced cognitive problems can have serious consequences for elderly people and can lead to confusional states and "pseudo-dementia". About 10% of elderly patients referred to memory clinics actually have a drug-induced cause that most often is benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines have also been linked to an increased risk of road traffic accidents and falls in the elderly. The long-term effects of benzodiazepines are still not fully understood in the elderly or any age group. Long-term benzodiazepine use is associated with attentional and visuospatial functional impairments. Withdrawal from benzodiazepines can lead to improved alertness and decreased forgetfulness in the elderly. Withdrawal led to statistical significant improvements in memory function and performance related skills in those having withdrawn successfully from benzodiazepines, whereas those having remained on benzodiazepines experienced worsening symptoms. People having withdrawn from benzodiazepines also felt their sleep was more refreshing, making statements such as "I feel sharper when I wake up" or "I feel better, more awake", or "It used to take me an hour to fully wake up." This suggests that benzodiazepines may actually make insomnia worse in the elderly. [15]

    Tolerance occurs to the muscle-relaxant, anticonvulsant, and sleep-inducing effects of benzodiazepines, and upon cessation a benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome occurs. This can lead to benzodiazepines being taken for longer than originally intended, as people continue to take the drugs over a long period of time to suppress withdrawal symptoms. Some people use benzodiazepines at very high doses and devote a lot of time to doing so, satisfying the diagnostic criteria in DSM V for substance use disorder. Another group of people include those on low to moderate therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines who do not use their benzodiazepines differently than recommended by their prescriber but develop a physical tolerance and benzodiazepine dependence. [5] A considerable number of individuals using benzodiazepines for insomnia escalate their dosage, sometimes above therapeutically-prescribed dose levels. Tolerance to the anxiolytic effect of benzodiazepines has been clearly demonstrated in rats. In humans, there is little evidence that benzodiazepines retain their anti-anxiety effects beyond four months of continuous treatment there is evidence that suggests that long-term use of benzodiazepines may actually worsen anxiety, which in turn may lead to dosage escalation, with one study finding 25% of patients escalated their dosage. Some authors, however, consider benzodiazepines to be effective long-term however, it is more likely that the drugs are acting to prevent rebound anxiety withdrawal effects which can be mistaken as continued drug efficacy. Tolerance to the anticonvulsant and muscle-relaxing effects of benzodiazepines occurs within a few weeks in most patients. [7] [16]

    Risk factors Edit

    The risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence are long-term use beyond four weeks, use of high doses, use of potent short-acting benzodiazepines, dependent personalities, and proclivity for substance use. [13] Use of short-acting benzodiazepines leads to repeated withdrawal effects that are alleviated by the next dose, which reinforce in the individual the dependence. [11] A physical dependence develops more quickly with higher potency benzodiazepines such as alprazolam (Xanax) than with lower potency benzodiazepines such as chlordiazepoxide (Librium). [10]

    Symptom severity is worse with the use of high doses, or with benzodiazepines of high potency or short half-life. Other cross-tolerant sedative hypnotics, such as barbiturates or alcohol, increase the risk of benzodiazepine dependence. [17] Similar to opioids' use for pain, therapeutic use of benzodiazepines rarely leads to a substance use disorder. [18]

    Tolerance and physical dependence Edit

    Tolerance develops rapidly to the sleep-inducing effects of benzodiazepines. The anticonvulsant and muscle-relaxant effects last for a few weeks before tolerance develops in most individuals. Tolerance results in a desensitization of GABA receptors and an increased sensitization of the excitatory neurotransmitter system, such as NMDA glutamate receptors. These changes occur as a result of the body trying to overcome the drug's effects. Other changes that occur are the reduction of the number of GABA receptors (downregulation) as well as possibly long-term changes in gene transcription coding of brain cells. The differing speed at which tolerance occurs to the therapeutic effects of benzodiazepines can be explained by the speed of changes in the range of neurotransmitter systems and subsystems that are altered by chronic benzodiazepine use. The various neurotransmitter systems and subsystems may reverse tolerance at different speeds, thus explaining the prolonged nature of some withdrawal symptoms. As a result of a physical dependence that develops due to tolerance, a characteristic benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome often occurs after removal of the drug or a reduction in dosage. [19] Changes in the expression of neuropeptides such as corticotropin-releasing hormone and neuropeptide Y may play a role in benzodiazepine dependence. [20] Individuals taking daily benzodiazepine drugs have a reduced sensitivity to further additional doses of benzodiazepines. [21] Tolerance to benzodiazepines can be demonstrated by injecting diazepam into long-term users. In normal subjects, increases in growth hormone occurs, whereas, in benzodiazepine-tolerant individuals, this effect is blunted. [22]

    Animal studies have shown that repeated withdrawal from benzodiazepines leads to increasingly severe withdrawal symptoms, including an increased risk of seizures this phenomenon is known as kindling. Kindling phenomena are well established for repeated ethanol (alcohol) withdrawal alcohol has a very similar mechanism of tolerance and withdrawal to benzodiazepines, involving the GABAA, NMDA, and AMPA receptors. [5]

    The shift of benzodiazepine receptors to an inverse agonist state after chronic treatment leads the brain to be more sensitive to excitatory drugs or stimuli. Excessive glutamate activity can result in excitotoxicity, which may result in neurodegeneration. The glutamate receptor subtype NMDA is well known for its role in causing excito-neurotoxicity. The glutamate receptor subtype AMPA is believed to play an important role in neuronal kindling as well as excitotoxicity during withdrawal from alcohol as well as benzodiazepines. It is highly possible that NMDA receptors are involved in the tolerance to some effects of benzodiazepines. [5]

    Animal studies have found that glutamergic changes as a result of benzodiazepine use are responsible for a delayed withdrawal syndrome, which in mice peaks 3 days after cessation of benzodiazepines. This was demonstrated by the ability to avoid the withdrawal syndrome by the administration of AMPA antagonists. It is believed that different glutamate subreceptors, e.g., NMDA and AMPA, are responsible for different stages/time points of the withdrawal syndrome. NMDA receptors are upregulated in the brain as a result of benzodiazepine tolerance. AMPA receptors are also involved in benzodiazepine tolerance and withdrawal. [5] [23] A decrease in benzodiazepine binding sites in the brain may also occur as part of benzodiazepine tolerance. [24]

    Cross tolerance Edit

    Benzodiazepines share a similar mechanism of action with various sedative compounds that act by enhancing the GABAA receptor. Cross tolerance means that one drug will alleviate the withdrawal effects of another. It also means that tolerance of one drug will result in tolerance of another similarly-acting drug. Benzodiazepines are often used for this reason to detoxify alcohol-dependent patients and can have life-saving properties in preventing or treating severe life-threatening withdrawal syndromes from alcohol, such as delirium tremens. However, although benzodiazepines can be very useful in the acute detoxification of alcoholics, benzodiazepines in themselves act as positive reinforcers in alcoholics, by increasing the desire for alcohol. Low doses of benzodiazepines were found to significantly increase the level of alcohol consumed in alcoholics. [25] Alcoholics dependent on benzodiazepines should not be abruptly withdrawn but be very slowly withdrawn from benzodiazepines, as over-rapid withdrawal is likely to produce severe anxiety or panic, which is well known for being a relapse risk factor in recovering alcoholics. [26]

    There is cross tolerance between alcohol, the benzodiazepines, the barbiturates, the nonbenzodiazepine drugs, and corticosteroids, which all act by enhancing the GABAA receptor's function via modulating the chloride ion channel function of the GABAA receptor. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

    Neuroactive steroids, e.g., progesterone and its active metabolite allopregnanolone, are positive modulators of the GABAA receptor and are cross tolerant with benzodiazepines. [32] The active metabolite of progesterone has been found to enhance the binding of benzodiazepines to the benzodiazepine binding sites on the GABAA receptor. [33] The cross-tolerance between GABAA receptor positive modulators, including benzodiazepines, occurs because of the similar mechanism of action and the subunit changes that occur from chronic use from one or more of these compounds in expressed receptor isoforms. Abrupt withdrawal from any of these compounds, e.g., barbiturates, benzodiazepines, alcohol, corticosteroids, neuroactive steroids, and nonbenzodiazepines, precipitate similar withdrawal effects characterized by central nervous system hyper-excitability, resulting in symptoms such as increased seizure susceptibility and anxiety. [34] While many of the neuroactive steroids do not produce full tolerance to their therapeutic effects, cross-tolerance to benzodiazepines still occurs as had been demonstrated between the neuroactive steroid ganaxolone and diazepam. Alterations of levels of neuroactive steroids in the body during the menstrual cycle, menopause, pregnancy, and stressful circumstances can lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of benzodiazepines and a reduced therapeutic effect. During withdrawal of neuroactive steroids, benzodiazepines become less effective. [35]

    Physiology of withdrawal Edit

    Withdrawal symptoms are a normal response in individuals having chronically used benzodiazepines, and an adverse effect and result of drug tolerance. Symptoms typically emerge when dosage of the drug is reduced. GABA is the second-most-common neurotransmitter in the central nervous system (the most common being glutamate [36] [37] [38] ) and by far the most abundant inhibitory neurotransmitter roughly one-quarter to one-third of synapses use GABA. [39] The use of benzodiazepines has a profound effect on almost every aspect of brain and body function, either directly or indirectly. [40]

    Benzodiazepines cause a decrease in norepinephrine (noradrenaline), serotonin, acetylcholine, and dopamine [ citation needed ] . These neurotransmitters are needed for normal memory, mood, muscle tone and coordination, emotional responses, endocrine gland secretions, heart rate, and blood pressure control. With chronic benzodiazepine use, tolerance develops rapidly to most of its effects, so that, when benzodiazepines are withdrawn, various neurotransmitter systems go into overdrive due to the lack of inhibitory GABA-ergic activity. Withdrawal symptoms then emerge as a result, and persist until the nervous system physically reverses the adaptions (physical dependence) that have occurred in the CNS. [40]

    Withdrawal symptoms typically consist of a mirror image of the drug's effects: Sedative effects and suppression of REM and SWS stages of sleep can be replaced by insomnia, nightmares, and hypnogogic hallucinations its antianxiety effects are replaced with anxiety and panic muscle-relaxant effects are replaced with muscular spasms or cramps and anticonvulsant effects are replaced with seizures, especially in cold turkey or overly-rapid withdrawal. [40]

    Benzodiazepine withdrawal represents in part excitotoxicity to brain neurons. [41] Rebound activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis also plays an important role in the severity of benzodiazepine withdrawal. [42] Tolerance and the resultant withdrawal syndrome may be due to alterations in gene expression, which results in long-term changes in the function of the GABAergic neuronal system. [43] [44]

    During withdrawal from full or partial agonists, changes occur in benzodiazepine receptor with upregulation of some receptor subtypes and downregulation of other receptor subtypes. [45]

    Withdrawal Edit

    Long-term use of benzodiazepines leads to increasing physical and mental health problems, and as a result, discontinuation is recommended for many long-term users. The withdrawal syndrome from benzodiazepines can range from a mild and short-lasting syndrome to a prolonged and severe syndrome. Withdrawal symptoms can lead to continued use of benzodiazepines for many years, long after the original reason for taking benzodiazepines has passed. Many patients know that the benzodiazepines no longer work for them but are unable to discontinue benzodiazepines because of withdrawal symptoms. [40]

    Withdrawal symptoms can emerge despite slow reduction but can be reduced by a slower rate of withdrawal. As a result, withdrawal rates have been recommended to be customized to each individual patient. The time needed to withdrawal can vary from a couple of months to a year or more and often depends on length of use, dosage taken, lifestyle, health, and social and environmental stress factors. [40]

    Diazepam is often recommended due to its long elimination half-life and also because of its availability in low potency doses. The non-benzodiazepine Z drugs such as zolpidem, zaleplon, and zopiclone should not be used as a replacement for benzodiazepines, as they have a similar mechanism of action and can induce a similar dependence. The pharmacological mechanism of benzodiazepine tolerance and dependence is the internalization (removal) of receptor site in the brain and changes in gene transcription codes in the brain. [40]

    With long-term use and during withdrawal of benzodiazepines, treatment-emergent depression and [7] emotional blunting may emerge and sometimes also suicidal ideation. There is evidence that the higher the dose used the more likely it is benzodiazepine use will induce these feelings. Reducing the dose or discontinuing benzodiazepines may be indicated in such cases. Withdrawal symptoms can persist for quite some time after discontinuing benzodiazepines. Some common protracted withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, depression, insomnia, and physical symptoms such as gastrointestinal, neurologic, and musculoskeletal effects. The protracted withdrawal state may still occur despite slow titration of dosage. It is believed that the protracted withdrawal effects are due to persisting neuroadaptations. [10]

    For a diagnosis of benzodiazepine dependence to be made, the ICD-10 requires that at least 3 of the below criteria are met and that they have been present for at least a month, or, if less than a month, that they appeared repeatedly during a 12-month period. [46] [47]

    • Behavioral, cognitive, and physiological phenomena that are associated with the repeated use and that typically include a strong desire to take the drug.
    • Preference given to drug use rather than to other activities and obligations
    • Increased tolerance to effects of the drug and sometimes a physical withdrawal state.

    These diagnostic criteria are good for research purposes, but, in everyday clinical practice, they should be interpreted according to clinical judgement. In clinical practice, benzodiazepine dependence should be suspected in those having used benzodiazepines for longer than a month, in particular, if they are from a high-risk group. The main factors associated with an increased incidence of benzodiazepine dependence include: [46]

    Benzodiazepine dependence should be suspected also in individuals having substance use disorders including alcohol, and should be suspected in individuals obtaining their own supplies of benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepine dependence is almost certain in individuals who are members of a tranquilizer self-help group. [46]

    Research has found that about 40 percent of people with a diagnosis of benzodiazepine dependence are not aware that they are dependent on benzodiazepines, whereas about 11 percent of people judged not to be dependent believe that they are. When assessing a person for benzodiazepine dependence, asking specific questions rather than questions based on concepts is recommended by experts as the best approach of getting a more accurate diagnosis. For example, asking persons if they "think about the medication at times of the day other than when they take the drug" would provide a more meaningful answer than asking "do you think you are psychologically dependent?". [46] The Benzodiazepine Dependence Self Report Questionnaire is one questionnaire used to assess and diagnose benzodiazepine dependence. [46]

    Definition Edit

    Benzodiazepine dependence is the condition resulting from repeated use of benzodiazepine drugs. It can include both a physical dependence as well as a psychological dependence and is typified by a withdrawal syndrome upon a fall in blood plasma levels of benzodiazepines, e.g., during dose reduction or abrupt withdrawal. [48]

    Due to the risk of developing tolerance, dependence, and adverse health effects, [49] such as cognitive impairment, [20] benzodiazepines are indicated for short-term use only - a few weeks, followed by a gradual dose reduction. [50]

    The Committee on the Review of Medicines (UK) Edit

    The Committee on the Review of Medicines carried out a review into benzodiazepines due to significant concerns of tolerance, drug dependence, benzodiazepine withdrawal problems, and other adverse effects and published the results in the British Medical Journal in March 1980. The committee found that benzodiazepines do not have any antidepressant or analgesic properties and are, therefore, unsuitable treatments for conditions such as depression, tension headaches, and dysmenorrhea. Benzodiazepines are also not beneficial in the treatment of psychosis. The committee also recommended against benzodiazepines for use in the treatment of anxiety or insomnia in children. [6]

    The committee was in agreement with the Institute of Medicine (USA) and the conclusions of a study carried out by the White House Office of Drug Policy and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (USA) that there is little evidence that long-term use of benzodiazepine hypnotics are beneficial in the treatment of insomnia due to the development of tolerance. Benzodiazepines tend to lose their sleep-promoting properties within 3–14 days of continuous use, and, in the treatment of anxiety, the committee found that there was little convincing evidence that benzodiazepines retains efficacy in the treatment of anxiety after 4 months of continuous use due to the development of tolerance. [6]

    The committee found that the regular use of benzodiazepines causes the development of dependence characterized by tolerance to the therapeutic effects of benzodiazepines and the development of the benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome including symptoms such as anxiety, apprehension, tremors, insomnia, nausea, and vomiting upon cessation of benzodiazepine use. Withdrawal symptoms tend to develop within 24 hours upon cessation of short-acting benzodiazepines, and 3–10 days after cessation of longer-acting benzodiazepines. Withdrawal effects could even occur after treatment lasting only 2 weeks at therapeutic dose levels however, withdrawal effects tend to occur with habitual use beyond 2 weeks and are more likely the higher the dose. The withdrawal symptoms may appear to be similar to the original condition. [6]

    The committee recommended that all benzodiazepine treatment be withdrawn gradually and recommended that benzodiazepine treatment be used only in carefully selected patients and that therapy be limited to short-term use only. It was noted in the review that alcohol can potentiate the central nervous system-depressant effects of benzodiazepines and should be avoided. The central nervous system-depressant effects of benzodiazepines may make driving or operating machinery dangerous, and the elderly are more prone to these adverse effects. High single doses or repeated low doses have been reported to produce hypotonia, poor sucking, and hypothermia in the neonate, and irregularities in the fetal heart. The committee recommended that benzodiazepines be avoided in lactation. [6]

    The committee recommended that withdrawal from benzodiazepines be gradual, as abrupt withdrawal from high doses of benzodiazepines may cause confusion, toxic psychosis, convulsions, or a condition resembling delirium tremens. Abrupt withdrawal from lower doses may cause depression, nervousness, rebound insomnia, irritability, sweating, and diarrhea. [6]

    The committee also made a mistake [ citation needed ] concluding: [6]

    on the present available evidence, the true addiction potential of benzodiazepines was low. The number dependent on the benzodiazepines in the UK from 1960 to 1977 has been estimated to be 28 persons. This is equivalent to a dependence rate of 5-10 cases per million patient months.

    Benzodiazepines are regarded as a highly addictive drug class. [51] A psychological and physical dependence can develop in as short as a few weeks but may take years to develop in other individuals. Patients wanting to withdraw from benzodiazepines typically receive little advice or support, and such withdrawal should be by small increments over a period of months. [52]

    Benzodiazepines are usually prescribed only short-term, as there is little justification for their prescribing long-term. [53] Some doctors however, disagree and believe long-term use beyond 4 weeks is sometimes justified, although there is little data to support this viewpoint. [9] Such viewpoints are a minority in the medical literature. [54]

    There is no evidence that "drug holidays" or periods of abstinence reduced the risk of dependence there is evidence from animal studies that such an approach does not prevent dependence from happening. Use of short-acting benzodiazepines is associated with interdose withdrawal symptoms. Kindling has clinical relevance with regard to benzodiazepines for example, there is an increasing shift to use of benzodiazepines with a shorter half-life and intermittent use, which can result in interdose withdrawal and rebound effects. [5]

    Cognitive behavioral therapy Edit

    Cognitive behavioral therapy has been found to be more effective for the long-term management of insomnia than sedative hypnotic drugs. No formal withdrawal programs for benzodiazepines exists with local providers in the UK. Meta-analysis of published data on psychological treatments for insomnia show a success rate between 70 and 80%. [ citation needed ] A large-scale trial utilizing cognitive behavioral therapy in chronic users of sedative hypnotics including nitrazepam, temazepam, and zopiclone found CBT to be a significantly more effective long-term treatment for chronic insomnia than sedative hypnotic drugs. Persisting improvements in sleep quality, sleep onset latency, increased total sleep, improvements in sleep efficiency, significant improvements in vitality, physical and mental health at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups were found in those receiving CBT. A marked reduction in total sedative hypnotic drug use was found in those receiving CBT, with 33% reporting zero hypnotic drug use. Age has been found not to be a barrier to successful outcome of CBT. It was concluded that CBT for the management of chronic insomnia is a flexible, practical, and cost-effective treatment, and it was also concluded that CBT leads to a reduction of benzodiazepine drug intake in a significant number of patients. [55]

    Chronic use of hypnotic medications is not recommended due to their adverse effects on health and the risk of dependence. A gradual taper is usual clinical course in getting people off of benzodiazepines, but, even with gradual reduction, a large proportion of people fail to stop taking benzodiazepines. The elderly are particularly sensitive to the adverse effects of hypnotic medications. A clinical trial in elderly people dependent on benzodiazepine hypnotics showed that the addition of CBT to a gradual benzodiazepine reduction program increased the success rate of discontinuing benzodiazepine hypnotic drugs from 38% to 77% and at the 12-month follow-up from 24% to 70%. The paper concluded that CBT is an effective tool for reducing hypnotic use in the elderly and reducing the adverse health effects that are associated with hypnotics such as drug dependence, cognitive impairments, and increased road traffic accidents. [56]

    A study of patients undergoing benzodiazepine withdrawal who had a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder showed that those having received CBT had a very high success rate of discontinuing benzodiazepines compared to those not having receive CBT. This success rate was maintained at the 12-month follow-up. Furthermore, it was found that, in patients having discontinued benzodiazepines, they no longer met the diagnosis of general anxiety disorder, and that the number of patients no longer meeting the diagnosis of general anxiety disorder was higher in the group having received CBT. Thus, CBT can be an effective tool to add to a gradual benzodiazepine dosage reduction program leading to improved and sustained mental health benefits (Disputed). [57]

    Letter to patients Edit

    Sending a letter to patients warning of the adverse effects of long-term use of benzodiazepines and recommending dosage reduction has been found to be successful and a cost-effective strategy in reducing benzodiazepine consumption in general practice. Within a year of the letter's going out, there was found to be a 17% fall in the number of benzodiazepines being prescribed, with 5% of patients having totally discontinued benzodiazepines. [58] [59] A study in the Netherlands reported a higher success rate by sending a letter to patients who are benzodiazepine-dependent. The results of the Dutch study reported 11.3% of patients discontinuing benzodiazepines completely within a year. [60]

    Flumazenil Edit

    Flumazenil delivered via slow subcutaneous infusion represents a safe procedure for those withdrawing from long-term, high dose benzodiazepine dependency. [61] It has a low risk of seizures even amongst those who have experienced convulsions when previously attempting benzodiazepine withdrawal. [62]

    Research studies have come to different conclusions on the number of therapeutic dose users who develop a physical dependence and withdrawal syndrome. Researches estimate 20-100% (that's a wide range) of patients, taking benzodiazepines at therapeutic dosages for the long term, are physically dependent and will experience withdrawal symptoms. [63]

    Benzodiazepines can be addictive and induce dependence even at low doses, with 23% becoming addicted within 3 months of use. Benzodiazepine addiction is considered a public health problem. Approximately 68.5% of prescriptions of benzodiazepines originate from local health centers, with psychiatry and general hospitals accounting for 10% each. A survey of general practitioners reported that the reason for initiating benzodiazepines was due to an empathy for the patients suffering and a lack of other therapeutic options rather than patients demanding them. However, long-term use was more commonly at the insistence of the patient, it is presumed, because physical dependence or addiction had developed. [64] [65] [66]

    Approximately twice as many women as men are prescribed benzodiazepines. It is believed that this is largely because men typically turned to alcohol to cope with stress and women to prescription drugs. Biased perception of women by male doctors may also play a role in increased prescribing rates to women however, increased anxiety features in women does not account for the wide gap alone between men and women. [22]

    Based on findings in the US from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), an annual compilation of patient characteristics in substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States, admissions due to "primary tranquilizer" (including, but not limited to, benzodiazepine-type) drug use increased 79% from 1992 to 2002. [67]

    A study published in the British Journal of General Practice in July 2017 found that in a sample taken from a survey conducted in 2014–2015 in Bradford a mean of 0.69% of registered patients had been prescribed benzodiazepines for more than a year. This would suggest that there were around 300,000 long-term users of diazepine in the UK. [68]

    Previously, physical dependence on benzodiazepines was largely thought to occur only in people on high-therapeutic-dose ranges. Low- or normal-dose dependence was not suspected until the 1970s, and it was not until the early 1980s that it was confirmed. [69] [70] Low-dose dependence has now been clearly demonstrated in both animal studies and human studies, [71] [72] and is a recognized clinical disadvantage of benzodiazepines. Severe withdrawal syndromes can occur from these low doses of benzodiazepines even after gradual dose reduction. [73] [74] An estimated 30–45% of chronic low-dose benzodiazepine users are dependent and it has been recommended that benzodiazepines even at low dosage be prescribed for a maximum of 7–14 days to avoid dependence. [75] As a result, the global trend is toward strict regulations for the prescription of benzodiazepines due to this risk of low-dose dependence. [76]

    Some controversy remains, however, in the medical literature as to the exact nature of low-dose dependence and the difficulty in getting patients to discontinue their benzodiazepines, with some papers attributing the problem to predominantly drug-seeking behavior and drug craving, whereas other papers having found the opposite, attributing the problem to a problem of physical dependence with drug-seeking and craving not being typical of low-dose benzodiazepine users. [77] [78]

    Misuse and addiction Edit

    Benzodiazepines are one of the largest classes of illicitly used substances they are classed as schedule IV controlled drugs because of their recognized medical uses. [79] Across the world the most frequently diverted and non-medically used benzodiazepines include temazepam, diazepam, nimetazepam, nitrazepam, triazolam, flunitrazepam, midazolam, and in the United States alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

    Benzodiazepines can cause serious addiction problems. A survey of doctors in Senegal found that many doctors feel that their training and knowledge of benzodiazepines is, in general, poor a study in Dakar found that almost one-fifth of doctors ignored prescribing guidelines regarding short-term use of benzodiazepines, and almost three-quarters of doctors regarded their training and knowledge of benzodiazepines to be inadequate. More training regarding benzodiazepines has been recommended for doctors. [80] Due to the serious concerns of addiction, national governments were recommended to urgently seek to raise knowledge via training about the addictive nature of benzodiazepines and appropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines. [81]

    A six-year study on 51 Vietnam veterans who had a substance use disorder related mainly to stimulants (11 people), opiates (26 people), or benzodiazepines (14 people) was carried out to assess psychiatric symptoms related to the specific substances. After six years, people who used opiates had little change in psychiatric symptomatology five of the people who used stimulants developed psychosis, and eight of the people who used benzodiazepine developed depression. Therefore, long-term benzodiazepine use and dependence seems to carry a negative effect on mental health, with a significant risk of causing depression. [82] Benzodiazepines are also sometimes taken intra-nasally when not recommended for use this way by their prescriber. [83]

    In the elderly, alcohol and benzodiazepines are the most commonly used addictive substances, and the elderly population is more susceptible to benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome and delirium than are younger patients. [84]

    1. ^ de Wit H Griffiths RR (June 1991). "Testing the abuse liability of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in humans". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 28 (1): 83–111. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(91)90054-3. PMID1679388.
    2. ^
    3. Nutt DJ (1 January 1986). "Benzodiazepine dependence in the clinic: reason for anxiety". Trends Neurosci. 7: 457–460. doi:10.1016/0165-6147(86)90420-7 . Retrieved 21 December 2012 .
    4. ^
    5. Uzun S Kozumplik O Jakovljević M Sedić B (Mar 2010). "Side effects of treatment with benzodiazepines". Psychiatr Danub. 22 (1): 90–3. PMID20305598.
    6. ^
    7. O'brien CP (2005). "Benzodiazepine use, abuse, and dependence". J Clin Psychiatry. 66 (Suppl 2): 28–33. PMID15762817.
    8. ^ abcdef
    9. Allison C Pratt JA (May 2003). "Neuroadaptive processes in GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in benzodiazepine dependence". Pharmacol. Ther. 98 (2): 171–95. doi:10.1016/S0163-7258(03)00029-9. PMID12725868.
    10. ^ abcdefg
    11. Committee on the Review of Medicines (March 29, 1980). "Systematic review of the benzodiazepines. Guidelines for data sheets on diazepam, chlordiazepoxide, medazepam, clorazepate, lorazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, triazolam, nitrazepam, and flurazepam. Committee on the Review of Medicines". Br Med J. 280 (6218): 910–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.280.6218.910. PMC1601049 . PMID7388368.

    . the committee concluded that, on the present available evidence, the true addiction potential of benzodiazepines was low. The number dependent on the benzodiazepines in the UK from 1960 to 1977 has been estimated to be 28 persons. This is equivalent to a dependence rate of 5-10 cases per million patient months.

    To kidnap a king: the foiled plot to abduct Edward VI

    On the night of 16 January 1549, the quiet of Westminster Palace was broken by frantic barking outside the king's chamber. On being awoken, Sir Michael Stanhope, who had charge of the king, rushed to the door. There, he found the king's dog stone dead and immediately cried out "Help! Murder!"

    This competition is now closed

    Published: January 15, 2020 at 4:30 pm

    Everyone in the vicinity came running, and it was with relief that the boy king – 11-year-old Edward VI – was found safe in his bed. Whoever had killed the dog had fled in the commotion. All the evidence pointed to the king’s uncle, Thomas Seymour. Here, historian Elizabeth Norton investigates…

    When Henry VIII died in January 1547, power was quickly grasped by Edward Seymour, who became both lord protector and Duke of Somerset. He was unwilling to share power with his younger brother, who had been little esteemed by the old king. The relationship between the pair was further soured when Thomas married Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s widow. The younger Seymour hoped to be appointed guardian of the king, but there was little prospect of his brother relinquishing the role.

    Thomas Seymour had been pleased to be appointed Lord High Admiral early in 1547, telling his friend Sir William Sharington that it gave him “the rule of a good sort of ships and men. And I tell you it is a good thing to have the rule of men”. He suffered disappointment, however, when Lord Clinton was instead appointed to head the English navy that summer in the Protector’s invasion of Scotland. Thomas Seymour remained in London, kicking his heels about the court as Somerset surged northwards, winning a victory against the Scots at the battle of Pinkie, east of Edinburgh, on 10 September 1547. With the protector gone, Thomas Seymour was able to gain access easily to the king in his apartments at Hampton Court.

    Sitting with his royal nephew one day, Thomas told Edward that Somerset would never be able to dominate in Scotland “without loss of a great number of men or of himself and therefore that he spent a great sum of money in vain”. This hit a nerve with the king, since Somerset was widely believed to be embezzling Henry VIII’s treasury and alienating his lands. Thomas chided his nephew that he was “too bashful” in his own affairs, and that he should speak up in order to “bear rule, as other kings do”. Edward shook his head, declaring that “I needed not, for I was well enough”, yet he registered his uncle’s words.

    When Thomas came to him again that September, he told the child that “ye must take upon you yourself to rule, for ye shall be able enough as well as other kings and then ye may give your men somewhat for your uncle is old, and I trust will not live long”. Edward’s reply was chilling: “it were better that he should die”. Indeed, there was little love lost between the monarch and the lord protector. Thomas also informed Edward that “ye are but even a beggarly king now,” drawing attention to the fact that he had no money with which to play at cards or reward his servants. Thomas would, he assured Edward, supply him with the sums required. In return, Edward assured his uncle that he was happy to take “secret measures” to ensure that he replaced Somerset as royal governor.

    Somerset’s absence in Scotland had handed the king to his brother, and Thomas meant to capitalise on it. He trawled through royal records, seeking out precedents to support his bid to become the king’s governor, and he began to build support at court. He was, however, incapable of concealing his actions: word soon reached Somerset that a plot was afoot and, abandoning a promising situation in Scotland, he hurried southwards. He re-established control, banning his brother from meeting with the king. This had little effect, however, since Thomas was friends with several members of the privy chamber. It was a simple matter to communicate with the boy over the coming months.

    The relationship between the brothers remained frosty into the following year. The death in childbirth of Thomas’s wife, Katherine Parr, on 5 September 1548 also failed to heal relations. Although Katherine had once been so furious with the protector that she had threatened to bite him, she had been a restraining hand on her husband. With her death, he moved headlong towards his ruin.

    Henry VIII’s younger daughter, Princess Elizabeth, had originally lived with Katherine and Thomas, but had been sent away after the queen had caught her husband embracing the girl that June. Thomas Seymour had toyed with marrying the teenager before he wed the queen, and had carried out a flirtation with her for more than a year at the queen’s residences at Chelsea and Hanworth and in his own London residence, Seymour Place. With Katherine’s death, Thomas became, as Elizabeth’s governess, Katherine Ashley, informed her, “the noblest man unmarried in this land”. Soon, her cofferer, Thomas Parry, was meeting privately with Seymour in London. It seemed that Elizabeth was prepared to consider marriage with the king’s younger uncle.

    At the same time as his negotiations with Elizabeth’s servant, Thomas Seymour was also plotting to bring down his brother. For some months he had been attempting to win friends in the counties by visiting important local men. In October 1548 he informed his ally, Sir William Sharington that from his own tenants and servants he could muster 10,000 men. Sharington was himself a useful ally, since he was the under-treasurer of the Bristol mint and had been counterfeiting testoons [silver coins] since the spring of 1548, stamped with his own initials and a bust of Henry VIII.

    In the autumn of 1548, Seymour asked Sharington how much money would be required to pay and ration 10,000 men for a month, before declaring “God’s faith, Sharington, if we had £10,000 in ready money that were well, could not you be able to make so much money?”. The coiner agreed that it could be done and set to work. Thomas began to provision Holt Castle, a fortification that stood at an important crossing point on the River Dee, giving access to south Wales.

    Thomas Seymour was a regular visitor to the king’s chambers during the winter of 1548–9. He was there on the evening of 6 January 1549, where he spoke jovially to the king’s attendants, unaware that the Bristol mint had been searched by the protector’s servants that day. While Thomas Seymour appeared nonchalant at Sharington’s arrest a few days later, he understood the implications that it had for his own plot. On the night of the arrest, John Fowler, who was Seymour’s chief contact in the king’s privy chamber, came to him in a state of alarm, lamenting that “I am utterly undone”. Privately, Seymour resolved to bring his plot forwards.

    From around 10 January, he began to invite the Marquess of Dorset and the Earl of Huntington – both men he believed he could trust – to Seymour Place in the evenings. The talk was mundane, but on each evening the meetings would break up suddenly, with Seymour setting out alone for the court at Westminster. There, his behaviour was suspicious. He would go quietly into the buttery, where alcohol for the court was kept. Pouring himself a drink, he would wait alone among the bottles and barrels until John Fowler appeared. Each time, he asked “whether the king would say anything of him?” “Nay in good faith” replied Fowler. At once melancholy, Thomas wished aloud that Edward was five or six years older. At the end of each visit, the king’s younger uncle would insist that Fowler “bring him word when the king was rising”. Every morning he did so.

    By day, Seymour was still attending parliament, but his strange behaviour was beginning to be noticed. While talking to John Fowler on one occasion, Seymour was informed about orders that had been given to ensure that the king remained safely locked away at night. Thomas asked what was meant by this, but Fowler said he could not tell. Thomas concurred: “No I neither. What is he afraid that any man will take the king away from him? If he think that I will go about it, he shall watch a good while”. It was hardly a baseless concern, as Fowler himself could attest, since Seymour had once commented to him that “there is a slender company about the king”, before stating that “a man might steal away the king now, for there come more with me than is in all the house besides”. Such a course, if successful, would, de facto, give Seymour the coveted governorship of the king’s person.

    On 16 January, a servant informed Thomas Seymour that the Earl of Rutland, whom he considered a friend, had made a deposition against him to the council. Hearing this, he began to suspect “by diverse conjectures” (as he later admitted) that the council intended his arrest. That evening, Seymour’s brother-in-law, the Marquess of Northampton, found him in a state of high agitation, rehearsing the day’s events out loud.

    After sending Northampton away, Seymour went to court, arriving in the evening. Once there he spoke to the king’s guards, scattering their watch as he sent them on various errands. With a key that had been given to him by one of the king’s chamberlains he was able to open the door to the room adjoining the king’s bedchamber, “which he entered in the dead of night”. There, he disturbed the little dog, which usually slept in the king’s bedroom, and was his “most faithful guardian”. In the ensuing panic he stabbed the dog to death with his dagger, before fleeing home once more to Seymour Place.

    The next day Thomas Seymour was arrested and sent to the Tower of London. Later, he would be accused of trying “to instil into His Grace’s head” the idea that he should “take upon himself the government and managing of his own affairs”. In his evening visits to court the week before, did he meet with the king and plan an “abduction” with him? It would seem plausible that the bedchamber key had been given to him on Edward’s command, since none of his attendants was ever accused of this.

    In the Tower, Seymour, while at his lowest ebb, wrote the lines of verse: “forgetting God to love a king / Hath been my rod, or else nothing”. His protests of innocence, too, insofar as he made any defence, were based on the claim that he had had the king’s confidence and approval in everything. How could it be treason to do as the king asked? He probably hoped to collect Princess Elizabeth at Hatfield on the way out of London. At Holt Castle, the three could then wait for the protector to fall before Thomas Seymour – the king’s new brother-in-law – emerged to take his place.

    Unfortunately for Seymour, by leaving his dog in the chamber outside his bedroom the boy-king had botched his own escape attempt. On 20 March 1549, Thomas Seymour lost his head for it.

    Elizabeth Norton is a historian of the queens of England and the Tudor period. She is author of The Lives Of Tudor Women (Head of Zeus, 2016), England’s Queens: The Biography (Amberley, 2015) and The Temptation of Elizabeth Tudor (Head of Zeus, 2015), which looks at the relationship between the future Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour, the uncle of King Edward VI.

    This article was originally published by History Extra in 2016

    Women of Somerset Place

    Somerset Place, located in Washington County, was one of North Carolina’s largest plantations. Bordering on the shores of Lake Phelps, Somerset had more than two thousand acres of farmland and another 125,000 acres of cypress and white cedar forests. Mary Riggs (1808–1872) of Newark, New Jersey, became the matriarch of Somerset when she married Josiah Collins III (1808–1863) in 1829. She had gone to the same school in New York City that Josiah’s five sisters had attended. After the wedding the young couple made Somerset their home. Josiah had inherited the plantation from his grandfather, the first Josiah Collins of Edenton. Somerset was also the home of more than three hundred slaves, most of whom were women.

    Life at Somerset Place revolved around farming. Josiah and the overseers kept good records each year to prepare for the next year’s planting season. Most of Somerset’s slaves were field hands who labored five days a week from sunrise to sunset and until noon on Saturdays. Each morning the overseer had the horn sounded to begin the workday. The field hands were divided into gangs assigned to different tasks and different fields.

    Sixty percent of Somerset’s field hands were women and they labored in the fields alongside the men. In the winter months, women and the older children cleaned out the ditches, cleared the fields of weeds, cleaned the roads, repaired and built fences, chopped wood for the wood house, and burned wood to make charcoal. In the spring, men, women, and children prepared the fields for planting. Children planted the potatoes, turnips, and flax. During the herring season, they were sent to dip herring out of the canal. There were two harvest holidays, one in June after the wheat harvest and another in October. The slaves also had a five-day holiday at Christmas. Those who had family members in Edenton were sometimes allowed to visit them then.

    Women who were too old for field work were given jobs closer to the Big House like weeding the gardens, milking the plantation’s fifty-two cows, watching over the herd of 225 sheep, tending the chicken yard and pigpens, or caring for the little children whose mothers worked in the fields. One of those who worked with the older women was Rebecca “Becky” Drew (1825–1901). Becky had been born in Edenton at another Collins plantation and had been sent at age fifteen to work in the fields at Somerset Place. Homesick for her mother and family, Becky was caught trying to run away and was put in the stocks overnight. Unfortunately, the night turned cold, her feet became frozen, and she lost circulation in both legs. Her feet had to be amputated. Despite her handicap, Becky could still walk and was able to do small jobs.

    Charlotte Cabarrus, the Collins’s family housekeeper, was born in Edenton about 1800. She and her family had been freed by their owner, Auguste Cabarrus. Because she was free, Charlotte was the only black on the plantation to be paid for her work. She was hired when Josiah and Mary first came to Somerset Place. When the Collins boys were small, she was their nurse. The boys were very fond of Charlotte and called her “Shish.” Because Mary Riggs Collins was not born in the South, she was not fully prepared to run a large plantation household, unlike most wealthy southern women. Charlotte was her helpful second-in-command. It is likely that she guided her mistress in the effective management of the household. Charlotte also helped those slaves who were sick.

    Mary loved to entertain and frequently had members of her family come from New Jersey for long visits. One of her greatest pleasures was the flower garden that she developed near the Big House alongside the canal. An experimenter with flowers, Mary had a greenhouse near the kitchen. There, she could plant new varieties of flowers for her garden. When her neighbor, Caroline Pettigrew, asked for some ivy, Mary shocked Caroline by bringing the ivy cuttings and planting them herself. Caroline thought Mary would have sent one of the three slaves who helped her in the garden.

    In June 1860 Mary suffered a severe stroke that left her partially paralyzed and unable to write or speak. Her new daughter-in-law, Sarah “Sally” Rebecca Jones Collins, suddenly found herself in charge of the large household at Somerset Place. Sally was twenty-seven years old and had recently married the Collinses’ oldest son, Joe (Josiah IV). Born in Hillsborough, Sally was sent to school in the North but had been taught how to manage a plantation household by her mother, also the mistress of a large plantation. In December 1860 Sally had her first child, whom she named for her mother-in-law.

    During the Civil War, the Collins family left Somerset Place in care of the overseer. Many of the slaves were transported up-country to a plantation in Franklin County called Hurry Scurry. The Collinses hoped to keep the slaves away from the Union forces that took over most of eastern North Carolina.

    Josiah Collins III died in 1863. Mary Collins and her sons returned to Somerset Place after the war. The plantation was never as profitable as before the war, and they gave up farming there. Most of the freed slaves moved away from the plantation in search of employment. For many years, Somerset Place was farmed by others. In the 1950s the State of North Carolina took over most of the plantation property. The Big House and outbuildings were restored and are now open as a state historic site.

    John Sykes is a former researcher with the Historic Sites Section, Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources. At the time of this article’s publication, he was a graduate student in southern history at the University of Alabama. He is a former member of the THJHA.

    The new, insecure regime

    For the first decades those who opposed the religious policies of the Elizabethan government could take comfort from the evident insecurity of a regime embodied by a mature, childless Queen who obstinately refused to marry and whose nearest heir was the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. Had Elizabeth died early (as she nearly did in 1563, from smallpox), England too might have plunged into the same religious civil war convulsing neighbouring lands on the Continent.

    Given this evident insecurity, it was with remarkable confidence that Elizabeth and her advisors addressed those complicated problems of domestic and foreign policy arising from a new restoration of Protestantism.

    The Church of England would remain, in the words of its Protestant critics, 'but halfly reformed'.

    A Parliament gathered to settle religion in 1559 compliantly reinstated the Protestant Prayer Book of Edward VI. But Elizabeth balked at the introduction of the full Calvinist Church order urged upon her by foreign theologians and by some of the English exiles who, having withdrawn to the continent during Mary's reign, now returned to assist the new regime. The English church retained Bishops and ecclesiastical vestments, which many of the hotter Protestants regarded as an unacceptable Popish survival. When in 1566 Elizabeth insisted upon uniformity in clerical attire, a substantial proportion of the English clergy (up to ten per cent in London) refused to submit and was deprived. Further attempts to move the Queen to a more perfect Reformation, whether by Parliamentary statute or subtle pressure from the bench of bishops, proved equally unavailing. The Church of England would remain, in the words of its Protestant critics, 'but halfly reformed'.

    History of the Duchy

    The Duchy was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son and heir, Prince Edward. A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the Monarch and the heir to the throne.

    The estate and its operations have evolved in line with the views and ambitions of each Duke of Cornwall, but the charter created a clear set of rules that are still observed today. For example, The Prince of Wales is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on the sale of capital assets, and only receives the annual income which they generate.

    The Duchy was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son and heir, Prince Edward

    The Duchy estate has never owned the entire county of Cornwall and a large part of the estate has always lain outside of it. However, the Duchy has a special relationship with the county and has certain rights and responsibilities which relate to the county as a whole. It also owns the foreshore (coastline) and fundus (riverbed) around Cornwall and part of south Devon.

    The Duchy was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son and heir, Prince Edward

    Prince Charles became Duke when his mother acceded to the throne as Elizabeth II in 1952

    At its origin, the Duchy consisted of two parts: the title and honour (known as the dignity) and the territory (landed estate), which supported it financially.

    The two titles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, are held by the same individual but are nevertheless distinct. This is reflected in the two separate organisations of The Prince of Wales’s Office and the Duchy of Cornwall, which work together to support the heir to the throne.

    The title Prince of Wales is the older of the two titles, and is conferred by a special creation. This differs from the title of Duke of Cornwall, which is hereditary and is either inherited at birth or on the accession of a new monarch to the throne. Prince Charles, for example, became Duke when his mother acceded to the throne as Elizabeth II in 1952, and was created Prince of Wales on 26 July 1958 at the age of nine

    Charles I, engraved from a portrait when he was still the Duke of Cornwall


    The Black Prince (Edward of Woodstock) became the first Duke of Cornwall aged just seven years old, when the estate was created out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by King Edward III in 1337.

    Although he was away in France for much of his time as Duke – fighting to reclaim the French crown for his father ­– contemporaries regarded him as a kindly landlord. Thomas Brinton, Bishop of Rochester, wrote of The Duke soon after his death in 1376, “Where the Lords of this world usually oppress and afflict their tenants and landholders, this lord always cared for his tenants, comforting them in many ways.”

    This was demonstrated in The Duke's actions, most notably pardoning certain money payments to his Cornish tenants in 1357 on account of the Black Death intervening in support of Cornish tinners whose goods had been interfered with at sea in 1359 and arranging for all the grazing animals in the Forest of Dartmoor (owned then and now by the Duchy) to be distributed to the most distressed people in Cornwall.

    Primarily a fighting man, The Duke distinguished himself at the battles of Crecy in August 1346 and Poitiers in September 1356. The heavy cost of his campaigns in France and Spain was that The Duke died at the relatively young age of 46, a year before his father, Edward III in 1377.

    One of the most active Dukes in its history was Prince Henry Frederick, eldest son of James I. Despite being Duke for only two years until his early death at the age of 18 in 1612, he was keen to set down rules for better guiding and governing the affairs of the Duchy. An intriguing correspondence between him and his auditor shows the latter drawing the young Prince’s attention to his father’s generosity in making him large financial gifts to maintain his household: “thereby to teache You howe to lyve like Yourself, much resembling the Eagle, whoe to learne her Young to flye doth carry them on her owne back.”

    The current Prince of Wales is the 24 th Duke of Cornwall and the longest serving. In 2012, he celebrated 60 years as Duke. George Augustus Frederick (future George IV) served from 1762 until 1820 and Albert Edward (future Edward VII) served from 1841 until 1901.

    Charles I, engraved from a portrait when he was still the Duke of Cornwall

    In 1421, the Duchy acquired 19 manors


    In addition to the land holdings which established the Duchy in 1337, in 1421, the Duchy acquired 19 manors (mostly Sir Matthew Gourney’s estate in Somerset), transferred to the Duchy by Henry V in exchange for the manor of Isleworth.

    In Henry VIII’s reign, a number of Cornish manors confiscated after the attainder of Henry Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter, were transferred to the Duchy by Act of Parliament. As a consequence of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the Duchy acquired further manors in Cornwall belonging to the former priories of Tywardreath and Launceston.

    Under the Commonwealth in the mid-17 th century, Duchy estates were surveyed by parliamentary commissioners and subsequently sold, but later recovered at the Restoration.

    From 1860 onwards, the Duchy landholding was consolidated, acquiring large estates at Gillingham in Dorset in 1862 and Stoke Climsland in Cornwall in 1880. Also about this time, much building and refurbishment work took place on Duchy farms, the legacy of which remains with us today.

    Twentieth century acquisitions to the estate include Maiden Castle in Dorset in 1913, Newton Park in Somerset in 1941 and two Cornish estates, Duloe and Arrallas purchased in 1951 and 1952 respectively. A decade later in 1959, Daglingworth in Gloucestershire was bought, with Highgrove and Cradley in Herefordshire acquired in 1991.

    In 2000, the Duchy purchased the Prudential’s rural portfolio, which is scattered over a number of counties, the bulk being in Herefordshire.

    Discover more

    The Duke of Cornwall

    The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337 to provide independence to his son and heir, Prince Edward.

    The Duchess of Cornwall

    The Duchess of Cornwall supports her husband, The Prince of Wales, in carrying out his work and duties as Heir to The Throne and Duke of Cornwall.

    History of the Duchy

    The Duchy was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son and heir, Prince Edward. A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the Monarch and the heir to the throne.

    Road to the Wars of the Roses

    York took control of the government again for a time as Protector, but it was short-lived. His financial reforms threatened those who had prospered under Henry’s slack rule.

    The First Battle of St Albans is often seen as the violent birthing of the Wars of the Roses, but it was not a dynastic dispute at this point. The real rivalry was between York and Somerset over the right to advise the weak king.

    York would not claim the throne until 1460, when he had been backed into a corner and left with nothing to lose.

    York’s second eldest son, Edmund, was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, 1460

    It came after a decade of opposition to the regime which was less about his burning ambition and more about the responsibility he felt to help see the kingdom properly governed.

    He had done all he could to avoid it before eventually igniting the Yorkist claim to the throne.

    Matt Lewis is an author and historian of the middle ages with a focus on the Wars of the Roses. He has written books covering The Anarchy and the Wars of the Roses as well as biographies of Henry III, Richard, Duke of York, and Richard III.

    His books also include The Survival of the Princes in the Tower. Matt can be found on Twitter (@MattLewisAuthor), Facebook (@MattLewisAuthor) and Instagram (@MattLewisHistory).

    Watch the video: Norwegian Craft Traditions with ARNE u0026 CARLOS. 4. Folk Costumes: Still Going Strong After 300 years! (August 2022).