Rous and Richard's altered birthdate

I just realized (through Clements Markham's list of birth dates for the Duke of York's children) that the birth date John Rous assigned to Richard (the Feast of the Eleven Thousand Virgins, i.e., October 21) was George's birthday! I know we've discussed Rous's falsehoods and distortions, but I don't recall anyone mentioning this specific point. Apparently, he borrowed a birthday with sinister implications (the murder of innocents) and transferred it to a different brother! (Otherwise, why change October 2 to that specific date and mention the holy day by name rather than date?)

Carol, wondering what the implications of this birth date might have been for George of Clarence in the medieval mind

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> I just realized (through Clements Markham's list of birth dates for the Duke of York's children) that the birth date John Rous assigned to Richard (the Feast of the Eleven Thousand Virgins, i.e., October 21) was George's birthday! I know we've discussed Rous's falsehoods and distortions, but I don't recall anyone mentioning this specific point. Apparently, he borrowed a birthday with sinister implications (the murder of innocents) and transferred it to a different brother! (Otherwise, why change October 2 to that specific date and mention the holy day by name rather than date?)
>
> Carol, wondering what the implications of this birth date might have been for George of Clarence in the medieval mind
>

Ah, indeed you're right, Carol. Well done! I twigged this some time during the discussion we had on the subject some while back, but naughtily kept it to myself. (Well, it's not that clever of me as I had been making Clarence my study for a while.)

I actually think Rous probably didn't switch the birthdates deliberately. Remember that he was essentially an employee of the house of Warwick, and Clarence had thus been his patron. My belief is that his Historia had been a work in progress for many years, and that in earlier incarnations it had been intended for presentation to Clarence, then perhaps Edward IV, then Richard III, then Henry VII, and that he had had to keep not just updating it but making revisions to what he had already done for changed circumstances. That way mistakes get made.

But, as I suggested before, I don't think the educated medieval mind condemned people simply for their birthdays. According to popular culture some days were certainly luckier than others for doing certain things, and some days of the week were luckier to be born on than others. But the elite were not happy until they had a proper astrological calculation. And actually Rous doesn't say that it was bad for Richard to have been born on that day - all his condemnantion of Richard's nativity he bases on the claim that Richard's ascendant sign was Scorpio.

The reason Rous was putting a bad spin on what he claimed was Richard's birth details was, I think we're all agreed, that his final version was written for the benefit of Henry VII. Medievals believed in astrology (not half!), but this was proper complicated astrology, not the twelve-sizes-fit-all Sun Sign waffle served up by today's popular magazines.
I'm not getting into whether astrology works, but casting someone's horoscope is a highly skilled business, and I believe medieval astrology was particularly arcane and complex; at any rate, the horoscope involves not just the date of birth - on its own that would tell an astrologer nothing much at all - but the exact time and place. In fact, the Sun Sign (ie the sign determined by the month you were born), upon which newspaper horoscopes are based) has never been considered by astrologers to be the most important sign in the chart - that would be far too easy! The biggy that everybody wanted to know back then was a person's Ascendant, ie the sign through which the dawn horizon was passing at the exact time of their birth. But actually no sign of the Zodiac was really considered all bad news; everything has its positive and negative possibilities, and most people's charts will in any case have several signs exerting some sort of an influence. Rous was spinning, and could probably have spun with whatever yarn he had to hand.

Now, what we don't know is whether Richard's ascendant sign really was Scorpio, or whether than was Clarence as well. Unfortunately, William of Worcestre's list only gives the time of day for Edward IV's birth.

Marie

Marie wrote:
> Ah, indeed you're right, Carol. Well done! I twigged this some time during the discussion we had on the subject some while back, but naughtily kept it to myself. (Well, it's not that clever of me as I had been making Clarence my study for a while.)
>
> I actually think Rous probably didn't switch the birthdates deliberately. Remember that he was essentially an employee of the house of Warwick, and Clarence had thus been his patron. My belief is that his Historia had been a work in progress for many years, and that in earlier incarnations it had been intended for presentation to Clarence, then perhaps Edward IV, then Richard III, then Henry VII, and that he had had to keep not just updating it but making revisions to what he had already done for changed circumstances. That way mistakes get made.
<snip>
> Now, what we don't know is whether Richard's ascendant sign really was Scorpio, or whether than was Clarence as well. Unfortunately, William of Worcestre's list only gives the time of day for Edward IV's birth.

Carol responds:

If Rous couldn't get Richard's birthday right, I seriously doubt that he knew his Ascendant--or, if he did, he was not above altering that, too. He'd need a detailed horoscope, which would, of course, have had the correct date. (As you say, we have no way of knowing what it would have said regarding the Ascendant, which he could have altered as easily as he altered the date, and, as you say, that could have been George's as well.) For the birth dates, all he'd need is William of Worcester (which makes me wonder again why neither More nor Vergil got Edward IV's age right, assuming that it was accessible to them). So either he was extremely careless, which I don't think is the case, or he switched the two dates deliberately as part of his smear campaign.

However, I see no reason for Rous to switch the birth dates and to specifically identify the day as the Feast of the Eleven Thousand Virgins unless there was some negative implication associated with being born on that date. If only the rising sign mattered and it didn't matter that changing the date to the 21st would place the *sun sign* in Scorpio (that much not requiring a detailed horoscope to determine), why mention the date at all? The only reason for assigning George's birthday to Richard must be some association unknown to us moderns, and being born on the anniversary of the murders of many innocent maidens would (possibly) seem to the medieval mind like an evil omen. (The Feast of the Holy Innocents, December 28, would serve the same purpose, but possibly that would be too blatant a propaganda move even for Rous.)

By the way, does William of Worcester say anything about Richard's baptism? I've never heard it mentioned, only Edward's in contrast with Edmund's more lavish one.

Carol, whose train of though was interrupted by a phone call

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Ah, indeed you're right, Carol. Well done! I twigged this some time during the discussion we had on the subject some while back, but naughtily kept it to myself. (Well, it's not that clever of me as I had been making Clarence my study for a while.)
> >
> > I actually think Rous probably didn't switch the birthdates deliberately. Remember that he was essentially an employee of the house of Warwick, and Clarence had thus been his patron. My belief is that his Historia had been a work in progress for many years, and that in earlier incarnations it had been intended for presentation to Clarence, then perhaps Edward IV, then Richard III, then Henry VII, and that he had had to keep not just updating it but making revisions to what he had already done for changed circumstances. That way mistakes get made.
> <snip>
> > Now, what we don't know is whether Richard's ascendant sign really was Scorpio, or whether than was Clarence as well. Unfortunately, William of Worcestre's list only gives the time of day for Edward IV's birth.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If Rous couldn't get Richard's birthday right, I seriously doubt that he knew his Ascendant--or, if he did, he was not above altering that, too. He'd need a detailed horoscope, which would, of course, have had the correct date.

Marie
Or he'd need a note of the birth details and an astrologer. Well educated physicians tended to know astrology as they used it to determine the proper course of treatment.

(As you say, we have no way of knowing what it would have said regarding the Ascendant, which he could have altered as easily as he altered the date, and, as you say, that could have been George's as well.) For the birth dates, all he'd need is William of Worcester (which makes me wonder again why neither More nor Vergil got Edward IV's age right, assuming that it was accessible to them).

I wouldn't assume Worcester's Annales were accessible. They were not published until the early 18th century. Worcestre died in 1482, and I really don't know whether Rous, Vergil etc would have been aware that there was this source available. I suppose the only way we could tell whether these early Tudor "historians" had access to Worcestre would be by comparing their texts against the Annales.
Worcestre must have had access to a list kept by the York family, possibly in a prayerbook, but possibly only very hurried access because in a few cases the day of the week and the date of the birth don't tally. Worcestre was an employee of Fastolf, and Fastolf was on quite close terms with the Duke of York.
Interestingly, in the Rous Roll - which was for presentation to Richard himself - Rous doesn't give the birth date for either Richard or George, though he does have the dates of birth of their wives. That suggests to me he wasn't too sure of the dates for the husbands. It still looks to me as though he did have one of the birthdates but got muddled as to which of the Neville sisters' husbands it was for.
Marie

So either he was extremely careless, which I don't think is the case, or he switched the two dates deliberately as part of his smear campaign.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ. If smearing were the only motive, why not just make a date up? Why not say Richard was born on Holy Innocents' Day, or shared a birthday with King Herod?
Marie



>

I had a problem getting the exact birthdays for Clarence's two healthy children.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Rous and Richard's altered birthdate





--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Ah, indeed you're right, Carol. Well done! I twigged this some time during the discussion we had on the subject some while back, but naughtily kept it to myself. (Well, it's not that clever of me as I had been making Clarence my study for a while.)
> >
> > I actually think Rous probably didn't switch the birthdates deliberately. Remember that he was essentially an employee of the house of Warwick, and Clarence had thus been his patron. My belief is that his Historia had been a work in progress for many years, and that in earlier incarnations it had been intended for presentation to Clarence, then perhaps Edward IV, then Richard III, then Henry VII, and that he had had to keep not just updating it but making revisions to what he had already done for changed circumstances. That way mistakes get made.
> <snip>
> > Now, what we don't know is whether Richard's ascendant sign really was Scorpio, or whether than was Clarence as well. Unfortunately, William of Worcestre's list only gives the time of day for Edward IV's birth.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If Rous couldn't get Richard's birthday right, I seriously doubt that he knew his Ascendant--or, if he did, he was not above altering that, too. He'd need a detailed horoscope, which would, of course, have had the correct date.

Marie
Or he'd need a note of the birth details and an astrologer. Well educated physicians tended to know astrology as they used it to determine the proper course of treatment.

(As you say, we have no way of knowing what it would have said regarding the Ascendant, which he could have altered as easily as he altered the date, and, as you say, that could have been George's as well.) For the birth dates, all he'd need is William of Worcester (which makes me wonder again why neither More nor Vergil got Edward IV's age right, assuming that it was accessible to them).

I wouldn't assume Worcester's Annales were accessible. They were not published until the early 18th century. Worcestre died in 1482, and I really don't know whether Rous, Vergil etc would have been aware that there was this source available. I suppose the only way we could tell whether these early Tudor "historians" had access to Worcestre would be by comparing their texts against the Annales.
Worcestre must have had access to a list kept by the York family, possibly in a prayerbook, but possibly only very hurried access because in a few cases the day of the week and the date of the birth don't tally. Worcestre was an employee of Fastolf, and Fastolf was on quite close terms with the Duke of York.
Interestingly, in the Rous Roll - which was for presentation to Richard himself - Rous doesn't give the birth date for either Richard or George, though he does have the dates of birth of their wives. That suggests to me he wasn't too sure of the dates for the husbands. It still looks to me as though he did have one of the birthdates but got muddled as to which of the Neville sisters' husbands it was for.
Marie

So either he was extremely careless, which I don't think is the case, or he switched the two dates deliberately as part of his smear campaign.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ. If smearing were the only motive, why not just make a date up? Why not say Richard was born on Holy Innocents' Day, or shared a birthday with King Herod?
Marie

>

Carol earlier:
> >
> > If Rous couldn't get Richard's birthday right, I seriously doubt that he knew his Ascendant--or, if he did, he was not above altering that, too. He'd need a detailed horoscope, which would, of course, have had the correct date.
>
> Marie
> Or he'd need a note of the birth details and an astrologer. Well educated physicians tended to know astrology as they used it to determine the proper course of treatment.
>
> (As you say, we have no way of knowing what it would have said regarding the Ascendant, which he could have altered as easily as he altered the date, and, as you say, that could have been George's as well.) For the birth dates, all he'd need is William of Worcester (which makes me wonder again why neither More nor Vergil got Edward IV's age right, assuming that it was accessible to them).
>
> I wouldn't assume Worcester's Annales were accessible. They were not published until the early 18th century. Worcestre died in 1482, and I really don't know whether Rous, Vergil etc would have been aware that there was this source available. I suppose the only way we could tell whether these early Tudor "historians" had access to Worcestre would be by comparing their texts against the Annales.
> Worcestre must have had access to a list kept by the York family, possibly in a prayerbook, but possibly only very hurried access because in a few cases the day of the week and the date of the birth don't tally. Worcestre was an employee of Fastolf, and Fastolf was on quite close terms with the Duke of York.
> Interestingly, in the Rous Roll - which was for presentation to Richard himself - Rous doesn't give the birth date for either Richard or George, though he does have the dates of birth of their wives. That suggests to me he wasn't too sure of the dates for the husbands. It still looks to me as though he did have one of the birthdates but got muddled as to which of the Neville sisters' husbands it was for.

Carol earlier:
> So either he was extremely careless, which I don't think is the case, or he switched the two dates deliberately as part of his smear campaign.
>
> I think we'll just have to agree to differ. If smearing were the only motive, why not just make a date up? Why not say Richard was born on Holy Innocents' Day, or shared a birthday with King Herod?
> Marie

Carol responds:
Possibly because if he'd been born on Holy Innocents Day, it would already have been common knowledge? As for King Herod's birthday, no one would know when it was. But, then, the man claimed that Richard was two years in his mother's womb, slyly acknowledged even by More as a physical impossibility. As for why he chose George's birthday, probably it suggested itself as he looked at William of Worcester's list of dates. And, just possibly, it fit better with Scorpio. He couldn't prove that Scorpio was in the ascendant at Richard's birth, but he could "prove" that his sun sign was Scorpio if his birthday was October 21. I see no other reason to change the date, frankly, and particularly to choose that date. I'm sure you agree that the purpose of the other elements in the description (unnatural birth, a degree of deformity) were intended to make Richard appear to be a monster. Surely, the altered date of his birth (unless it was a simple misreading, which seems unlikely) was deliberate and served the same purpose, which you call "spin" and I call defamation of character based on unprovable falsehoods?

In any case, where would Rous (or anyone) find an astrologer who knew the hour of Richard's birth? Probably the only living person who knew that was Cecily Neville, and I doubt that she'd provide that information to Rous or anyone else under a Tudor regime.

I wonder the same thing about Vergil's getting Edward IV's age wrong if William of Worcester's work was accessible to him--and why wouldn't it be? Maybe he deliberately made Edward older to make his death seem less suspicious and/or to make *Richard* seem older (collapse the gap between their ages, forget that Edmund and two sisters as well as George came between them, and Richard seems to be about forty-eight or so, a middle-aged would-be usurper who's been plotting his takeover for a long time instead of the loyal young brother whose motto was Loyaultie me Lie. As for More, given the seeming precision down to year, month, and day--all of them completely wrong--the distortion seems deliberate to me, as if he's signaling to the knowledgeable reader that his "history" is a work of fiction.

At any rate, yes. We'd better agree to disagree on the whole question of Rous and his motives. (If only Richard had won Bosworth and we had only Rous' original depiction of him in the Rous Roll!)

Carol, who posted a review of Annette's book on Amazon yesterday and hopes it will show up soon

Carol earlier:

> I wonder the same thing about Vergil's getting Edward IV's age wrong if William of Worcester's work was accessible to him--and why wouldn't it be?

Carol again:
Sorry, Marie. I didn't read the part of your post about William of Worcester carefully enough. I still think, though, that whatever Rous's source for the birthdates of Cecily Neville's children, the "error" was deliberate.

As for Vergil's distortion of Edward's birth date, surely he must have had some source even if it wasn't William of Worcester. If he didn't know Edward's age at death, why mention his age at all? People seem to have known that Edward was born in Rouen and the illegitimacy rumor was apparently widespread during his lifetime (hints of it appear in Titulus Regius, indicating that the lords and commons were familiar with it), so those who believed or pretended to believe it (not just those like George and Warwick, who spread it) would have known when he was born, not to mention that it must have been common knowledge that he became king at eighteen. How, then, could Vergil have truly thought that he died at fifty (unless he was dismal at math)?

Carol, taking time off work for these hurried posts

Dear Marie,

> I actually think Rous probably didn't switch the birthdates
> deliberately. Remember that he was essentially an employee of the
> house of Warwick, and Clarence had thus been his patron. My belief
> is that his Historia had been a work in progress for many years,
> and that in earlier incarnations it had been intended for
> presentation to Clarence, then perhaps Edward IV, then Richard III,
> then Henry VII, and that he had had to keep not just updating it
> but making revisions to what he had already done for changed
> circumstances. That way mistakes get made.

Indeed. And it's also possible that 21st for 2nd is either a slip of
the pen or the mental equivalent, because they're not that dissimilar.
cheers,
Doc M