New member

Greetings from a newly-converted Ricardian. I'm looking to learn a lot more
about him and this time period.

*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen

Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred to the supposed
princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark about the remains
discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more likely those of
the
princes. I've not otherwise heard of this discovery. Anyone know
what this guide book refers to?

I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to put it
aside to get ready for Christmas. But there were two
sets of bones found in the tower. One set are
definately not those of the princes. Other set was
found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but never
properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may well be
those of hte princes.

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred
> to the supposed
> princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark
> about the remains
> discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more
> likely those of
> the
> princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> discovery. Anyone know
> what this guide book refers to?
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I know about the 2 sets of bones found during the 17th century.
This Guide states that some bones found in the 1980s were more
likely to be those of the princes. The NINETEEN EIGHTIES, the period
when Margaret Thatcher was PM of the UK.

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to put it
> aside to get ready for Christmas. But there were two
> sets of bones found in the tower. One set are
> definately not those of the princes. Other set was
> found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but never
> properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may well be
> those of hte princes.
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred
> > to the supposed
> > princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark
> > about the remains
> > discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more
> > likely those of
> > the
> > princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> > discovery. Anyone know
> > what this guide book refers to?
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I know about the 2 sets of bones found during the 17th century.
This Guide states that some bones found in the 1980s were more
likely to be those of the princes. The NINETEEN EIGHTIES, the period
when Margaret Thatcher was PM of the UK.

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to put it
> aside to get ready for Christmas. But there were two
> sets of bones found in the tower. One set are
> definately not those of the princes. Other set was
> found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but never
> properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may well be
> those of hte princes.
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred
> > to the supposed
> > princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark
> > about the remains
> > discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more
> > likely those of
> > the
> > princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> > discovery. Anyone know
> > what this guide book refers to?
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I really think I shouldn't have said anything. I'm not up enough on
it.

I really think Willison is right, atleast on older bones. There were
two older sets found. I think, now. The set found earlier, if I
have that right, under some stairs under a pile of stones in the
tower, were believed to be those of the princes and were put in the
crypt or whatever of Henry VII, where they still are. In the 1930's
they wree examined by two experts in assorted areas and the features
of the bones are consistent with their having been those of the
princes though not possible to be certain based on guesses of the
boys ages. These bones have never been dated nor the DNA in them
tested.

The other set of bones are almost certainly not those of the princes
though I can't remember why not. I think one thing that rules them
out is anatomical analysis of the bones, they weren't the right age
or something.

I don't think I'm aware of any bones found in the 1980's, though I
still think that could be the second set of bones because I'm only
aware of two sets of bones and strange I haven't encountered mention
of a third set yet.

Why are they thought particularly likely to be those of hte princes?
And where were they found?

Dora


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I know about the 2 sets of bones found during the 17th century.
> This Guide states that some bones found in the 1980s were more
> likely to be those of the princes. The NINETEEN EIGHTIES, the
period
> when Margaret Thatcher was PM of the UK.
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to put it
> > aside to get ready for Christmas. But there were two
> > sets of bones found in the tower. One set are
> > definately not those of the princes. Other set was
> > found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but never
> > properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may well be
> > those of hte princes.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred
> > > to the supposed
> > > princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark
> > > about the remains
> > > discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more
> > > likely those of
> > > the
> > > princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> > > discovery. Anyone know
> > > what this guide book refers to?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com

The reference to the 1980s bones believed to be the princes
appears in a Pitkin Guide, but is vague. It simply says they were
found in the Tower and are more likely to be the princes than the
1674 ones, but why, it doesn't say. I would've thought that someone
like the Moderator would've heard of this?

The other 17th century bones were too young!

--- In , "Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...>" <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I really think I shouldn't have said anything. I'm not up enough on
> it.
>
> I really think Willison is right, atleast on older bones. There
were
> two older sets found. I think, now. The set found earlier, if I
> have that right, under some stairs under a pile of stones in the
> tower, were believed to be those of the princes and were put in the
> crypt or whatever of Henry VII, where they still are. In the
1930's
> they wree examined by two experts in assorted areas and the features
> of the bones are consistent with their having been those of the
> princes though not possible to be certain based on guesses of the
> boys ages. These bones have never been dated nor the DNA in them
> tested.
>
> The other set of bones are almost certainly not those of the princes
> though I can't remember why not. I think one thing that rules them
> out is anatomical analysis of the bones, they weren't the right age
> or something.
>
> I don't think I'm aware of any bones found in the 1980's, though I
> still think that could be the second set of bones because I'm only
> aware of two sets of bones and strange I haven't encountered mention
> of a third set yet.
>
> Why are they thought particularly likely to be those of hte princes?

> And where were they found?
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I know about the 2 sets of bones found during the 17th century.
> > This Guide states that some bones found in the 1980s were more
> > likely to be those of the princes. The NINETEEN EIGHTIES, the
> period
> > when Margaret Thatcher was PM of the UK.
> >
> > --- In , Dora Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to put it
> > > aside to get ready for Christmas. But there were two
> > > sets of bones found in the tower. One set are
> > > definately not those of the princes. Other set was
> > > found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but never
> > > properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may well be
> > > those of hte princes.
> > >
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Bought a guide in a church recently and it referred
> > > > to the supposed
> > > > princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic remark
> > > > about the remains
> > > > discovered in the Tower during the 1980s were more
> > > > likely those of
> > > > the
> > > > princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> > > > discovery. Anyone know
> > > > what this guide book refers to?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com

OK - so there were THREE sets of bones, right?

When I get back into this after I finish with
Christmas, I will pay more attention to those bones.

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> The reference to the 1980s bones believed to be the
> princes
> appears in a Pitkin Guide, but is vague. It simply
> says they were
> found in the Tower and are more likely to be the
> princes than the
> 1674 ones, but why, it doesn't say. I would've
> thought that someone
> like the Moderator would've heard of this?
>
> The other 17th century bones were too young!
>
> --- In , "Dora
> Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...>" <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > I really think I shouldn't have said anything.
> I'm not up enough on
> > it.
> >
> > I really think Willison is right, atleast on older
> bones. There
> were
> > two older sets found. I think, now. The set
> found earlier, if I
> > have that right, under some stairs under a pile of
> stones in the
> > tower, were believed to be those of the princes
> and were put in the
> > crypt or whatever of Henry VII, where they still
> are. In the
> 1930's
> > they wree examined by two experts in assorted
> areas and the features
> > of the bones are consistent with their having been
> those of the
> > princes though not possible to be certain based on
> guesses of the
> > boys ages. These bones have never been dated nor
> the DNA in them
> > tested.
> >
> > The other set of bones are almost certainly not
> those of the princes
> > though I can't remember why not. I think one
> thing that rules them
> > out is anatomical analysis of the bones, they
> weren't the right age
> > or something.
> >
> > I don't think I'm aware of any bones found in the
> 1980's, though I
> > still think that could be the second set of bones
> because I'm only
> > aware of two sets of bones and strange I haven't
> encountered mention
> > of a third set yet.
> >
> > Why are they thought particularly likely to be
> those of hte princes?
>
> > And where were they found?
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> "willison2001
> > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > I know about the 2 sets of bones found during
> the 17th century.
> > > This Guide states that some bones found in the
> 1980s were more
> > > likely to be those of the princes. The NINETEEN
> EIGHTIES, the
> > period
> > > when Margaret Thatcher was PM of the UK.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> Dora Smith
> > > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > > I'm not quite up on all hte details, had to
> put it
> > > > aside to get ready for Christmas. But there
> were two
> > > > sets of bones found in the tower. One set
> are
> > > > definately not those of the princes. Other
> set was
> > > > found in 1674, looked at in the 1930's but
> never
> > > > properly tested, dated or DNA tested, and may
> well be
> > > > those of hte princes.
> > > >
> > > > Dora
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Bought a guide in a church recently and it
> referred
> > > > > to the supposed
> > > > > princes' bones of 1674, but made the cryptic
> remark
> > > > > about the remains
> > > > > discovered in the Tower during the 1980s
> were more
> > > > > likely those of
> > > > > the
> > > > > princes. I've not otherwise heard of this
> > > > > discovery. Anyone know
> > > > > what this guide book refers to?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
> up now.
> > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Hello All!

I'm new to this list. I consider myself a Ricardian. I hope to find
answers to some questions I haven't been able to answer for myself.

I've seen an interesting comment by a Venetian diplomat about the way
the English treated their children in a couple of sources.

"The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested toward
their children; for after keeping them at home till they arrive at
the age of seven or nine years at the utmost, they put them out, both
males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people,
binding them generally for another seven or nine years. … If the
English sent their children away from home to learn virtue and good
manners and took them back again when their apprenticeship was over,
they might, perhaps, be excused; but they never return, for the girls
are settled by their patrons, and the boys make the best marriages
they can …"

This comment was made around 1500, during Henry VII's reign.

Can anyone recommend articles or books that would tell me when this
system began and when it ended? Would it have any influence on child
mortality? Is there any information about the rate of child
mortality in England compared to child mortality in other European
countries?

TIA!

Marion

--- In , "phaecilia"
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> I'm new to this list. I consider myself a Ricardian. I hope to
find
> answers to some questions I haven't been able to answer for myself.
>
> I've seen an interesting comment by a Venetian diplomat about the
way
> the English treated their children in a couple of sources.
>
> "The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested toward
> their children; for after keeping them at home till they arrive at
> the age of seven or nine years at the utmost, they put them out,
both
> males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people,
> binding them generally for another seven or nine years. … If the
> English sent their children away from home to learn virtue and good
> manners and took them back again when their apprenticeship was
over,
> they might, perhaps, be excused; but they never return, for the
girls
> are settled by their patrons, and the boys make the best marriages
> they can …"
>
> This comment was made around 1500, during Henry VII's reign.
>
> Can anyone recommend articles or books that would tell me when this
> system began and when it ended? Would it have any influence on
child
> mortality? Is there any information about the rate of child
> mortality in England compared to child mortality in other European
> countries?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

A lecture I attended (Richard III Society research weekend) said that
the foreign visitor was a bit muddled. The system was actually the
same as in slightly later centuries. Most people's children would
have been at home until early teens, then the boys would go for live-
in apprencticeships, which tended to last 7 years, and the girls into
service - country girls might be in service in the houses of
neighbours or relatives. The aristocracy did seem to have developed
the habit of taking the male children out of the nursery at around 7
years of age and putting them into male tutelage. I read an article
which suggested this happened round about the beginning of the 15th
century and was an attempt to mimic Roman methods in order to produce
a nation of little heroes. In between that would be the middle
classes who sent their boys away to boarding school.
Generally, Italians and so on would still find the English a nation
not terribly fond of children!
I would highly recommend Nicholas Orme's book on Medieval English
Childhood.



Marie

I've come rather late to this thread so please forgive me if what I
say has already been dealt with.

I'm rather surprised by both the Venetian's comments and the
discussion below as I was under the impression that the custom of
sending offspring away at around the age of seven was not confined to
England and was established well before the 15th century, at any rate
among the aristocracy.

What I find quite interesting is that throughout recorded history
seven has pretty consistently been the age when things change -
childhood as we envisage it today ends and life begins to get
serious. For example, seven has long been the age of reason in the
Roman Catholic church, when the child is old enough to begin to take
responsibility for his own religious life and his own actions.
Certainly until very recently, seven was the age when in traditional
societies boys ceased to live exclusively among women and both sexes
began to be trained for their adult and gender-specific roles.

As to the question of whether the custom of being sent away from home
affected death rates, I suspect that the dangerous age was lower than
seven and by the age of seven those who were still around had well-
developed immune systems which could cope with the majority of bugs.
I'm no expert on these things, nor have I attempted an objective
study, but the information I have absorbed over the years suggests
that the dangerous times were:
a) The first days and weeks after birth, since very small and
disabled infants and those damaged in the process of birth would not
live long. Those who survived this period would have a measure of
immunity to infections from their mother's antibodies which would be
maintained to some extent by breast feeding. I don't know whether the
upper class practice of using wet nurses would make a difference here.
b) After weaning up to the age of four or five, when the immune
system is still being established. Anecdotal information I have
suggests that in the days when whole families went down with serious
illnesses at one time it tended to be the oldest who survived. A
friend tells me that when his father, born in 1876 and the eldest of
six, was 11, the entire family went down with scarlet fever, then a
very dangerous disease. It was the two youngest who died. Equally,
when the five children of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Vicoria,
got diphtheria in 1878, it was the youngest, aged four, who died (my
mother had it at 11 and made a good recovery).

This is not to say that the seven-year-old sent away to be educated
was not going to catch anything. Working at a university I know well
that in the first few weeks of the academic year everybody gets colds
and the like - because they are exposed to bugs from all round the
country for the first time. However, by the age of seven, unless it
was something like plague, it would be a matter of catching something
and recovering - perhaps rather in the way that I had mumps, chicken
pox and German measles in one go at the age of eight, and after a
rather miserable three weeks that was the end of it.

Ann

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "phaecilia"
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I'm new to this list. I consider myself a Ricardian. I hope to
> find
> > answers to some questions I haven't been able to answer for
myself.
> >
> > I've seen an interesting comment by a Venetian diplomat about the
> way
> > the English treated their children in a couple of sources.
> >
> > "The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested
toward
> > their children; for after keeping them at home till they arrive
at
> > the age of seven or nine years at the utmost, they put them out,
> both
> > males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people,
> > binding them generally for another seven or nine years. … If
the
> > English sent their children away from home to learn virtue and
good
> > manners and took them back again when their apprenticeship was
> over,
> > they might, perhaps, be excused; but they never return, for the
> girls
> > are settled by their patrons, and the boys make the best
marriages
> > they can …"
> >
> > This comment was made around 1500, during Henry VII's reign.
> >
> > Can anyone recommend articles or books that would tell me when
this
> > system began and when it ended? Would it have any influence on
> child
> > mortality? Is there any information about the rate of child
> > mortality in England compared to child mortality in other
European
> > countries?
> >
> > TIA!
> >
> > Marion
>
> A lecture I attended (Richard III Society research weekend) said
that
> the foreign visitor was a bit muddled. The system was actually the
> same as in slightly later centuries. Most people's children would
> have been at home until early teens, then the boys would go for
live-
> in apprencticeships, which tended to last 7 years, and the girls
into
> service - country girls might be in service in the houses of
> neighbours or relatives. The aristocracy did seem to have developed
> the habit of taking the male children out of the nursery at around
7
> years of age and putting them into male tutelage. I read an article
> which suggested this happened round about the beginning of the 15th
> century and was an attempt to mimic Roman methods in order to
produce
> a nation of little heroes. In between that would be the middle
> classes who sent their boys away to boarding school.
> Generally, Italians and so on would still find the English a nation
> not terribly fond of children!
> I would highly recommend Nicholas Orme's book on Medieval English
> Childhood.
>
>
>
> Marie

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I've come rather late to this thread so please forgive me if what I
> say has already been dealt with.
>
> I'm rather surprised by both the Venetian's comments and the
> discussion below as I was under the impression that the custom of
> sending offspring away at around the age of seven was not confined
to
> England and was established well before the 15th century, at any
rate
> among the aristocracy.
>
> What I find quite interesting is that throughout recorded history
> seven has pretty consistently been the age when things change -
> childhood as we envisage it today ends and life begins to get
> serious. For example, seven has long been the age of reason in the
> Roman Catholic church, when the child is old enough to begin to
take
> responsibility for his own religious life and his own actions.
> Certainly until very recently, seven was the age when in
traditional
> societies boys ceased to live exclusively among women and both
sexes
> began to be trained for their adult and gender-specific roles.
>
> As to the question of whether the custom of being sent away from
home
> affected death rates, I suspect that the dangerous age was lower
than
> seven and by the age of seven those who were still around had well-
> developed immune systems which could cope with the majority of
bugs.
> I'm no expert on these things, nor have I attempted an objective
> study, but the information I have absorbed over the years suggests
> that the dangerous times were:
> a) The first days and weeks after birth, since very small and
> disabled infants and those damaged in the process of birth would
not
> live long. Those who survived this period would have a measure of
> immunity to infections from their mother's antibodies which would
be
> maintained to some extent by breast feeding. I don't know whether
the
> upper class practice of using wet nurses would make a difference
here.
> b) After weaning up to the age of four or five, when the immune
> system is still being established. Anecdotal information I have
> suggests that in the days when whole families went down with
serious
> illnesses at one time it tended to be the oldest who survived. A
> friend tells me that when his father, born in 1876 and the eldest
of
> six, was 11, the entire family went down with scarlet fever, then a
> very dangerous disease. It was the two youngest who died. Equally,
> when the five children of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen
Vicoria,
> got diphtheria in 1878, it was the youngest, aged four, who died
(my
> mother had it at 11 and made a good recovery).
>
> This is not to say that the seven-year-old sent away to be educated
> was not going to catch anything. Working at a university I know
well
> that in the first few weeks of the academic year everybody gets
colds
> and the like - because they are exposed to bugs from all round the
> country for the first time. However, by the age of seven, unless it
> was something like plague, it would be a matter of catching
something
> and recovering - perhaps rather in the way that I had mumps,
chicken
> pox and German measles in one go at the age of eight, and after a
> rather miserable three weeks that was the end of it.
>
> Ann

Very much in agreement. I don't know whether Marion believes child
mortality rates to have been lower in Italy than they were in
England, just because a Venetian made disparaging remarks about
English attitudes to children. Also, we do have to bear in mind that
the country was still hit by recurrent attacks of plague, which
carried off the very young who had not encountered the illness
before. Those lucky enough to survive one epidemic developed
resistance, as was noted at the time.

In the days before very recent medical advances life was precarious
of its nature. Some families were lucky and brought all their large
family through to adulthood. Some were unlucky and lost nearly all. I
have two teenage children. Had I had them in the fifteenth century I
would probably be childless, not because I would not have cared for
them but because I am rhesus negative and both my children are
positive. Therefore the second, my daughter, would probably have been
born with rhesus disease and may not have pulled through. My son was
seriously ill at 14 with orbital cellulitis (infection in the eye
socket), which was trying to work its way along the optic nerve to
his brain, and which had also led to septicaemia. Without the
cocktail of antibiotics that were pumped in to him for days on end I
don't think for a minute we would still have him today.
Marie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "phaecilia"
> > <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > > Hello All!
> > >
> > > I'm new to this list. I consider myself a Ricardian. I hope
to
> > find
> > > answers to some questions I haven't been able to answer for
> myself.
> > >
> > > I've seen an interesting comment by a Venetian diplomat about
the
> > way
> > > the English treated their children in a couple of sources.
> > >
> > > "The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested
> toward
> > > their children; for after keeping them at home till they arrive
> at
> > > the age of seven or nine years at the utmost, they put them
out,
> > both
> > > males and females, to hard service in the houses of other
people,
> > > binding them generally for another seven or nine years. … If
> the
> > > English sent their children away from home to learn virtue and
> good
> > > manners and took them back again when their apprenticeship was
> > over,
> > > they might, perhaps, be excused; but they never return, for the
> > girls
> > > are settled by their patrons, and the boys make the best
> marriages
> > > they can …"
> > >
> > > This comment was made around 1500, during Henry VII's reign.
> > >
> > > Can anyone recommend articles or books that would tell me when
> this
> > > system began and when it ended? Would it have any influence on
> > child
> > > mortality? Is there any information about the rate of child
> > > mortality in England compared to child mortality in other
> European
> > > countries?
> > >
> > > TIA!
> > >
> > > Marion
> >
> > A lecture I attended (Richard III Society research weekend) said
> that
> > the foreign visitor was a bit muddled. The system was actually
the
> > same as in slightly later centuries. Most people's children would
> > have been at home until early teens, then the boys would go for
> live-
> > in apprencticeships, which tended to last 7 years, and the girls
> into
> > service - country girls might be in service in the houses of
> > neighbours or relatives. The aristocracy did seem to have
developed
> > the habit of taking the male children out of the nursery at
around
> 7
> > years of age and putting them into male tutelage. I read an
article
> > which suggested this happened round about the beginning of the
15th
> > century and was an attempt to mimic Roman methods in order to
> produce
> > a nation of little heroes. In between that would be the middle
> > classes who sent their boys away to boarding school.
> > Generally, Italians and so on would still find the English a
nation
> > not terribly fond of children!
> > I would highly recommend Nicholas Orme's book on Medieval English
> > Childhood.
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie

Marie

Glad to be in agreement. My impression is that until around the 1920s
it was the rule rather than the exception for parents to lose at
least one of their children. Queen Victoria, whose nine children all
lived to adulthood, was most unusual in this respect. The average in
the period 1837-1900 (when information is available in England and
Wales from death certificates) is about 1 child in 5 or 6 died under
the age of five, but this concealed huge variations. Going by my
family again, one set of paternal great-grandparents, married in
1867, had five and lost one, the other, married in 1876, had 10 and
lost two. On the maternal side one set had two born alive, both of
whom survived, but the mother then died from a stillbirth. The other
set had four and lost three - one died as a baby, the other two in a
scarlet fever epidemic (my grandmother, the survivor, was the eldest,
incidentally).

I don't know an enormous amount about genetics, but I happen to know
that the incidence of haemophilia, one disease about which nothing
could be done until very recently, is fairly constant through
history - about 1500 living haemophiliacs in the UK at any time in
the last half-century and proportionately less in earlier times. (The
defect is transmitted by mothers to their sons, daughters of carrier
mothers themselves have a 50% chance of being carriers, but all
daughters of haemophiliacs are carriers. Until recently few
haemophiliacs lived long enough to father children, so the gene would
tend to die out if it were not for an incidence of mutation, which
keeps the numbers up.) Presumably rhesus negativity is much the same
in the consistency of incidence, and both must therefore have
accounted for a fairly consistent level of deaths in childhood
throughout history (boys only in the case of haemophilia).

Of course, we cannot know what medieval parents thought about losing
their offspring in such numbers, but I tend to think that there was a
certain fatalism which no longer exists. As to Richard and Anne
Neville, the parents' grief, if Crowland was correct, may have been
more extreme than usual because he was their only child and the
chances of their having any more were slim.

Ann


> Very much in agreement. I don't know whether Marion believes child
> mortality rates to have been lower in Italy than they were in
> England, just because a Venetian made disparaging remarks about
> English attitudes to children. Also, we do have to bear in mind
that
> the country was still hit by recurrent attacks of plague, which
> carried off the very young who had not encountered the illness
> before. Those lucky enough to survive one epidemic developed
> resistance, as was noted at the time.
>
> In the days before very recent medical advances life was precarious
> of its nature. Some families were lucky and brought all their large
> family through to adulthood. Some were unlucky and lost nearly all.
I
> have two teenage children. Had I had them in the fifteenth century
I
> would probably be childless, not because I would not have cared for
> them but because I am rhesus negative and both my children are
> positive. Therefore the second, my daughter, would probably have
been
> born with rhesus disease and may not have pulled through. My son
was
> seriously ill at 14 with orbital cellulitis (infection in the eye
> socket), which was trying to work its way along the optic nerve to
> his brain, and which had also led to septicaemia. Without the
> cocktail of antibiotics that were pumped in to him for days on end
I
> don't think for a minute we would still have him today.
> Marie
> >

I have just joined and am interested in putting together a short auto
biography for John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Have been researching
on a very limited basis for years and now have to to do a bit more.
Big problem is that I now live in France, so access to source
materials is via the website, apart from the odd trip to the Uk! If
anyone has anything of interest, I'd be very grateful. My appologies
if this isn't the done thing!

--- In , "freyjabear"
<freyjabear@h...> wrote:
>
> I have just joined and am interested in putting together a short
auto
> biography for John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Have been
researching
> on a very limited basis for years and now have to to do a bit
more.
> Big problem is that I now live in France, so access to source
> materials is via the website, apart from the odd trip to the Uk!
If
> anyone has anything of interest, I'd be very grateful. My
appologies
> if this isn't the done thing!

Welcome Freyjabear! I think John is very interesting and I have
wanting something on him myself for some time but have no time to do
it. Good luck with it. The IHR is often a good base and within
walking distance of BL.
Brunhild

--- In , "freyjabear"
<freyjabear@h...> wrote:
>
> I have just joined and am interested in putting together a short
auto
> biography for John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Have been
researching
> on a very limited basis for years and now have to to do a bit more.
> Big problem is that I now live in France, so access to source
> materials is via the website, apart from the odd trip to the Uk! If
> anyone has anything of interest, I'd be very grateful. My
appologies
> if this isn't the done thing!

Hello and welcome!

I don't know if you're a member, but Wendy Moorhen wrote a good
article on Lincoln in a Ricardian a while back. If you don't have it
I could get you the number (back copies usually available).

Sorry, Stephen, got to stick my two pennyworth in. You know my
particular hobby horse about Lincoln. We don't have any documentary
evidence that Richard did appoint Lincoln as his heir, but it has
become the conventional wisdom. So that is something you can look at
and make up your own mind about. Also, Bennett's book on the Simnel
Rebellion - I expect you've probably read, but since it's quite old
now you might well get a cheap secondhand copy on Amazon.

Also, there is a lovely colour picture of his parents tomb (beautiful
effigies) on the Wingfield local website:
www.wingfield-suffolk.freeserve.co.uk/tombs/john_de_la_pole.jpg

I don't know if you could get permission to use it.

Marie

Hi there,

I've been interested in John De la Pole's life and his siblings for
awhile aswell. Any info I have I'll try and pass on. I live near to
Ewelme in Oxfordshire, a beautiful villiage where John lived for
awhile (probably during the first year of Henry VII's reign). His
grandmother Alice (A grandaughter of poet Chaucer) is buried in the
church there.
I'd be interested to know if he did have a son aswell?

Mim

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "freyjabear"
> <freyjabear@h...> wrote:
> >
> > I have just joined and am interested in putting together a short
> auto
> > biography for John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Have been
> researching
> > on a very limited basis for years and now have to to do a bit
> more.
> > Big problem is that I now live in France, so access to source
> > materials is via the website, apart from the odd trip to the Uk!
> If
> > anyone has anything of interest, I'd be very grateful. My
> appologies
> > if this isn't the done thing!
>
> Welcome Freyjabear! I think John is very interesting and I have
> wanting something on him myself for some time but have no time to
do
> it. Good luck with it. The IHR is often a good base and within
> walking distance of BL.
> Brunhild

Howdy from the other side of the pond. I second Annette's comment about new members sparking new debate.

As for the name "Ricardian", I was surprised to hear it talked about frequently at the Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, Michigan when I attended many years ago. I was delighted that there seemed to be so many admirers of Richard III in attendance until I learned that the folks who study Richard II call themselves Ricardians!

I remember Laura BLanchard remarking that the two groups should merge and call themselves "The Society of the White Heraldic Beasts". Actually the members of the two Ricardian groups did get along famously.

Welcome aboard!

L.M.L.,
Janet T.

Except that SWHB does not flow gently from the tongue...
:)
Sheffe




>________________________________
>From: "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:59 AM
>Subject: New member
>
>
> 
>Howdy from the other side of the pond. I second Annette's comment about new members sparking new debate.
>
>As for the name "Ricardian", I was surprised to hear it talked about frequently at the Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, Michigan when I attended many years ago. I was delighted that there seemed to be so many admirers of Richard III in attendance until I learned that the folks who study Richard II call themselves Ricardians!
>
>I remember Laura BLanchard remarking that the two groups should merge and call themselves "The Society of the White Heraldic Beasts". Actually the members of the two Ricardian groups did get along famously.
>
>Welcome aboard!
>
>L.M.L.,
>Janet T.
>
>
>
>
>

Just as an introduction: the latest news headlines inspired me to read again - after about 50 years - Josephine Tey's book "The Daughter of Time" as it was she who is responsible for the naming of our son Dickon - a diminutive of course of Richard.

Great name for a son Olga!  I think an awful lot of people have to thank Josephine Tey for their introduction to the real Richard.  I read We Speak No Treason first (in the early 70s)  thanks to my friend Marion who educated me, although I have to say having studied the Tudors at school (history began on 23rd August 1485 apparently)meant I loathed Henry Tudor before I knew much about Richard.  Then I read Tey at college.  I haven't read it for years, must do so. 
 
 


________________________________
From: olgalockley <burdol@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 18:51
Subject: New member

 
Just as an introduction: the latest news headlines inspired me to read again - after about 50 years - Josephine Tey's book "The Daughter of Time" as it was she who is responsible for the naming of our son Dickon - a diminutive of course of Richard.

I love the name Dickon!.......Regarding Josephine Tey's book..Daughter of Time...I think she would be most astonished if she knew how many people have read her book and then wanted to learn so much more about Richard. I think we owe a thank you to Josephine who wrote her book in the 1950s when there was not a lot of stuff around about Richard...I guess you could say Richard lll was not fashionable at that time...Eileen

--- In , "olgalockley" <burdol@...> wrote:
>
> Just as an introduction: the latest news headlines inspired me to read again - after about 50 years - Josephine Tey's book "The Daughter of Time" as it was she who is responsible for the naming of our son Dickon - a diminutive of course of Richard.
>

I have both books on my stack, they are next!

On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Great name for a son Olga! I think an awful lot of people have to thank Josephine Tey for their introduction to the real Richard. I read We Speak No Treason first (in the early 70s) thanks to my friend Marion who educated me, although I have to say having studied the Tudors at school (history began on 23rd August 1485 apparently)meant I loathed Henry Tudor before I knew much about Richard. Then I read Tey at college. I haven't read it for years, must do so.



________________________________
From: olgalockley burdol@...<mailto:burdol%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 18:51
Subject: New member


Just as an introduction: the latest news headlines inspired me to read again - after about 50 years - Josephine Tey's book "The Daughter of Time" as it was she who is responsible for the naming of our son Dickon - a diminutive of course of Richard.