Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but had been passed over because of his deformity.

Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the type of armour he wore

On the other hand ive seen royal family trees of the plantagenets that have edmund as the elder son by 5 years.

Was there any truth in what Henry Boilingbrook clamed

Hi there - May I comment on this? I have no special knowledge of this period so I don't claim any expertise, but it so happens that this generally accepted view that Henry Bolingbroke's claim to the throne centred on the Edmund Crouchback story, as you cite, has recently been challenged. So, out of interest, I went back to examine the sources as best I could, and in the process my view was reinforced that the Crouchback claim is the only one reported contemporaneously as being raised by both Henry and his father over a number of years.

In the course of this research I learned that the nickname Crouchback did indeed derive from Edmund's wearing of the crusader's cross, and that records exist showing that he was definitely the younger brother. Although not for publication, I wrote up my research in a paper which is available for friends to read privately if they wish, by contacting me offlline (emailATannettecarson.plus.com, substituting @ for AT).

The point of the exercise was not to show that Henry's claim by 'right line of blood' was or was not valid, but to ascertain what he actually said at the time.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: magharani4
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third



Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but had been passed over because of his deformity.

Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the type of armour he wore

On the other hand ive seen royal family trees of the plantagenets that have edmund as the elder son by 5 years.

Was there any truth in what Henry Boilingbrook clamed

The Chronicler Adam of Usk actually served on the Committee appointed by Bolingbroke to search monastic chronicles in an attempt to prove the Crouchback legend. The result of the enquiry was that there was no truth in the story. (Saul, Richard II p419)

Various other precedents for deposing Richard were looked at, but ultimately Henry could not resist referring obliquely to the legend in his 'challenge' to Parliament. Possibly some people were daft enough to believe him.

Recently Ian Mortimer has sought to show that Henry was merely referring to his general descent from Henry III through both parents, which of course was genuine enough. The problem is (apart from Usk's testimony) the Crouchback legend was brought up again in 1460 when the Lords were trying to find reasons NOT to depose Henry VI in favour of Richard Duke of York. Therefore the Crouchback legend *must* have been known to people even in 1460!

The puzzle is why Henry didn't simply claim the throne as heir male, which he undoubtedly was. It's probably safest to say that he himself probably thought that the Mortimer (Earl of March) claim was valid. However, he, Henry was the man in possession. Later he got Parliament to entail the throne on his children, in effect moving over to a statutory monarchy rather than a strictly hereditary one.

Brian W

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...> wrote: (snipped)
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
>> Was there any truth in what Henry Boilingbrook clamed
>

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...> wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the type of armour he wore


My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem, wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the "Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know. Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor? Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

In his own time the BP was known as 'Edward of Woodstock' or the Prince of Wales.

The 'Black Prince' thing dates from the 16th Century - albeit it may have earlier, unrecorded origins - and there are half a dozen theories as to the meaning of it. My favourite is that his 'shield of peace' was the three ostrich feathers on a black background. But really it's anyone's guess. I very much doubt he had dark hair - certainly his son was about as blond as it's possible to be without actually being albino.

Brian W.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem, wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another origin and significance.
>
> Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the "Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know. Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor? Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make identity more confusing, was the norm?
>
> Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.
>
> Kay
>

There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.





________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third




--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

If that were indeed the first known use, there is also the possibility Edward Prince of Wales, as father of Richard II, might be seen metaphorically as Progenitor of the wrangling to follow. Even as early as HVIII (and certainly by Shakespeare's time), the whole dynastic upset was underlaid with morality lessons, some of which we may not fully understand or appreciate. Blackness was intrinsically bad, and Edward's untimely death may have been seen to have meanings, in light (so to speak ; ) of what later transpired. Shakespeare's morality attributes the break in succession to Richard's downfall...but earlier people may have considered things slightly differently, and these near-superstitions may have bubbled up over time.

Or I could be but rambling; it's very hot here!

Judy


________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third


 
There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

Makes perfect sense. 
 
If it is rambling, it is entertaining rambling..  ;)
Margie

 
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third


 

If that were indeed the first known use, there is also the possibility Edward Prince of Wales, as father of Richard II, might be seen metaphorically as Progenitor of the wrangling to follow. Even as early as HVIII (and certainly by Shakespeare's time), the whole dynastic upset was underlaid with morality lessons, some of which we may not fully understand or appreciate. Blackness was intrinsically bad, and Edward's untimely death may have been seen to have meanings, in light (so to speak ; ) of what later transpired. Shakespeare's morality attributes the break in succession to Richard's downfall...but earlier people may have considered things slightly differently, and these near-superstitions may have bubbled up over time.

Or I could be but rambling; it's very hot here!

Judy

________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
> ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
> that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
> Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
> (not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
> in the time of Henry VIII.


In line with using hair color as an identifying nickname, there is John Comyn the Red, as distinguished from John Comyn the Black, in about the same time frame, in Scotland. In their case, the moniker was definitely hair color.

Kay

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

>
> Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

******

Upon further research, I found this portrait of Edward of Woodstock (the "Black Prince") from an illuminated manuscript:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince

I'd say it was contemporaneous with his lifetime, judging by the beard and hair style. It shows him with expected Plantagenet red hair.

Kay

Thanks, Margie. Just looking back through one's life time, it can be startling how differently some things come to be considered, even taken for granted, and the pace for this now seems accelerating like the expansion of the universe. That said, I don't think people were emotionally different; nor do I believe their Zeit Geist impenetrable.

Most of all, as you say, it does make for more entertainment than reruns of The Bachlorette, and it is less demanding than how we might worm our way out of Global Financial Ruin, which people far smarter than me can't seem to solve at present.

: )  Judy


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third


 
Makes perfect sense. 
 
If it is rambling, it is entertaining rambling..  ;)
Margie

 
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 

If that were indeed the first known use, there is also the possibility Edward Prince of Wales, as father of Richard II, might be seen metaphorically as Progenitor of the wrangling to follow. Even as early as HVIII (and certainly by Shakespeare's time), the whole dynastic upset was underlaid with morality lessons, some of which we may not fully understand or appreciate. Blackness was intrinsically bad, and Edward's untimely death may have been seen to have meanings, in light (so to speak ; ) of what later transpired. Shakespeare's morality attributes the break in succession to Richard's downfall...but earlier people may have considered things slightly differently, and these near-superstitions may have bubbled up over time.

Or I could be but rambling; it's very hot here!

Judy

________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

From Richard Barber in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Even his sobriquet, the Black Prince, which is not found until the Tudor period, is as obscure as his character; it has been variously attributed to his black armour and to French hatred of him. Rightly or wrongly, it is Froissart's depiction of him that has fired the imagination of succeeding centuries, for whom he embodies a golden age of English military feats and of chivalry."

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.
>
> ******
>
> Upon further research, I found this portrait of Edward of Woodstock (the "Black Prince") from an illuminated manuscript:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince
>
> I'd say it was contemporaneous with his lifetime, judging by the beard and hair style. It shows him with expected Plantagenet red hair.
>
> Kay
>

Hi Judy, et al:
 
I doubt they are smarter than you; sadly, seems those in the position to change things are  less reasonable than most of us.  IMHO, the ones who are 'smarter' have been warning us of this day for a long time...
 
Anyway, back on topic--well, sort of.  I recently finished an excellent book:
 
The Cardinal's Hat: Money, Ambition, and Everyday Life in
the Court of a Borgia Prince by Mary Hollingsworth.  While it was not about our specific king and country and is one generation later than our Richard, it is an amazing read that helped me to better understand how the large households of the very rich operated, and gave me a much clearer understanding of what a king's progress must have been like as well as the life of a servant and merchant and tradesman of the middle ages.
 
If you have room in your reading stack, I can't recommend it highly enough!
 
Margie 

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third


 

Thanks, Margie. Just looking back through one's life time, it can be startling how differently some things come to be considered, even taken for granted, and the pace for this now seems accelerating like the expansion of the universe. That said, I don't think people were emotionally different; nor do I believe their Zeit Geist impenetrable.

Most of all, as you say, it does make for more entertainment than reruns of The Bachlorette, and it is less demanding than how we might worm our way out of Global Financial Ruin, which people far smarter than me can't seem to solve at present.

: )  Judy

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
Makes perfect sense. 
 
If it is rambling, it is entertaining rambling..  ;)
Margie

 
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 

If that were indeed the first known use, there is also the possibility Edward Prince of Wales, as father of Richard II, might be seen metaphorically as Progenitor of the wrangling to follow. Even as early as HVIII (and certainly by Shakespeare's time), the whole dynastic upset was underlaid with morality lessons, some of which we may not fully understand or appreciate. Blackness was intrinsically bad, and Edward's untimely death may have been seen to have meanings, in light (so to speak ; ) of what later transpired. Shakespeare's morality attributes the break in succession to Richard's downfall...but earlier people may have considered things slightly differently, and these near-superstitions may have bubbled up over time.

Or I could be but rambling; it's very hot here!

Judy

________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

I once read that the saints depicted in the Wilton Dyptych are of Edward II (St.
Edmund), Edward III (Edward the Confessor) and The Black Prince (John the
Baptist). I think that this opinion may well be correct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/The_Wilton_Diptych_%28left%29.jpg

Sorry. What I meant to say is that the depictions of saints in the the left
panel of the Wilton Diptych are actually portraits of Edward II (St. Edmund,
left), Edward III (Edward the Confessor, middle) and The Black Prince (John the

Baptist, Right). I think that this opinion may well be correct.

Sounds well worth a read. The Borgias were an interesting lot. A Pope with children" The infamous Cesare? Though I never put much credence in Lucrezia being so bad. More of a pawn, really. And weren't these the people most likely Macchiavelli's model(s) for Il Principe?

(Not pretty times for the Papacy, in general. I seem to recall Sixtus IV was involved in the plot against the Medici family by the Pazzi that resulted in Lorenzo's younger brother Guiliano being assassinated in a church...on Easter Sunday! That was indeed "pazzo.")

Judy 


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Smarter People and a book


 
Hi Judy, et al:
 
I doubt they are smarter than you; sadly, seems those in the position to change things are  less reasonable than most of us.  IMHO, the ones who are 'smarter' have been warning us of this day for a long time...
 
Anyway, back on topic--well, sort of.  I recently finished an excellent book:
 
The Cardinal's Hat: Money, Ambition, and Everyday Life in
the Court of a Borgia Prince by Mary Hollingsworth.  While it was not about our specific king and country and is one generation later than our Richard, it is an amazing read that helped me to better understand how the large households of the very rich operated, and gave me a much clearer understanding of what a king's progress must have been like as well as the life of a servant and merchant and tradesman of the middle ages.
 
If you have room in your reading stack, I can't recommend it highly enough!
 
Margie 

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 

Thanks, Margie. Just looking back through one's life time, it can be startling how differently some things come to be considered, even taken for granted, and the pace for this now seems accelerating like the expansion of the universe. That said, I don't think people were emotionally different; nor do I believe their Zeit Geist impenetrable.

Most of all, as you say, it does make for more entertainment than reruns of The Bachlorette, and it is less demanding than how we might worm our way out of Global Financial Ruin, which people far smarter than me can't seem to solve at present.

: )  Judy

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
Makes perfect sense. 
 
If it is rambling, it is entertaining rambling..  ;)
Margie

 
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 

If that were indeed the first known use, there is also the possibility Edward Prince of Wales, as father of Richard II, might be seen metaphorically as Progenitor of the wrangling to follow. Even as early as HVIII (and certainly by Shakespeare's time), the whole dynastic upset was underlaid with morality lessons, some of which we may not fully understand or appreciate. Blackness was intrinsically bad, and Edward's untimely death may have been seen to have meanings, in light (so to speak ; ) of what later transpired. Shakespeare's morality attributes the break in succession to Richard's downfall...but earlier people may have considered things slightly differently, and these near-superstitions may have bubbled up over time.

Or I could be but rambling; it's very hot here!

Judy

________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

 
There is another theory that the Black Prince was so called because the three
ostrich feather emblem of the prince of Wales is placed on a black field, and
that he sometimes carried the prince of Wales banner and wore the prince of
Wales trappings in the lists. Personally, I like the "black hair" theory. Also
(not sure where I read this), the Black Prince epithet was supposedly first used
in the time of Henry VIII.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 12:19:14 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third

--- In , "magharani4" <magharani4@...>
wrote:
>
> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was
>descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but
>had been passed over because of his deformity.
>
> Ive seen some writings which say that was an absolute lie in that the hunchback
>legend originated because Edmund was in the habit of wearing a tunic with a red
>cross on its back as the crusaders did and that the crouchback was actually only
>a nickname derived from cross-back and that he was the younger son and had no
>defrmity.similar to the way the black prince was so nicknamed beacuse of the
>type of armour he wore

My thought is that if Edmund got the nickname because he wore a tunic or cape
with a cross, indicating that he had been on a Crusade and made it to Jerusalem,
wouldn't that have been a common nickname, since many knights and nobles could
claim the same feat? Do we find that nickname applied to other people of his
station, in his time? If not, I'd say the "crouchback" moniker has another
origin and significance.

Also, as I recall, the explanation that the Black Prince was called that because
he wore black armor was something dreamed up ex post facto. Maybe, like the
"Fair Maid of Kent" business for his wife Joan, it derives from Victorian
romances. Was he called the Black Prince during his lifetime? I don't know.
Do we have any contemporary corroboration that he actually wore black armor?
Why would he have done that? Reflective armor is hot enough -- men have died of
heat stroke while wearing armor in hot weather -- and black armor would absorb
the sun's rays and be even more dangerous to the wearer. The king's son would
be a very desirable ransom prize -- why make yourself conspicuous in
uniquely-colored armor in an era in which having a double or several, to make
identity more confusing, was the norm?

Personally, I think the Black Prince may have been called that because he had
black hair, which was unusual among the redheaded or blond Plantagenets. King
John's brown hair was unusual enough to be remarked upon...black hair would have
been even more so. But did Edward have black hair? I don't know.

Kay

You're in agreement on the saints with my friend Patty, who has far more knowledge of RII's reign than me.


________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback son of Henry the Third


 
I once read that the saints depicted in the Wilton Dyptych are of Edward II (St.
Edmund), Edward III (Edward the Confessor) and The Black Prince (John the
Baptist). I think that this opinion may well be correct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/The_Wilton_Diptych_%28left%29.jpg

There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!

(Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)

Best wishes
Christine

On 27/07/2011 15:58, Brian wrote:
> The Chronicler Adam of Usk actually served on the Committee appointed by Bolingbroke to search monastic chronicles in an attempt to prove the Crouchback legend. The result of the enquiry was that there was no truth in the story. (Saul, Richard II p419)
>
> Various other precedents for deposing Richard were looked at, but ultimately Henry could not resist referring obliquely to the legend in his 'challenge' to Parliament. Possibly some people were daft enough to believe him.
>
> Recently Ian Mortimer has sought to show that Henry was merely referring to his general descent from Henry III through both parents, which of course was genuine enough. The problem is (apart from Usk's testimony) the Crouchback legend was brought up again in 1460 when the Lords were trying to find reasons NOT to depose Henry VI in favour of Richard Duke of York. Therefore the Crouchback legend *must* have been known to people even in 1460!
>
> The puzzle is why Henry didn't simply claim the throne as heir male, which he undoubtedly was. It's probably safest to say that he himself probably thought that the Mortimer (Earl of March) claim was valid. However, he, Henry was the man in possession. Later he got Parliament to entail the throne on his children, in effect moving over to a statutory monarchy rather than a strictly hereditary one.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "magharani4"<magharani4@...> wrote: (snipped)
>> Henry iv Bolingbrook, based his claim to the throne on the basis that he was descended from Edmund crouchback who had been the elder son of Henry the 111 but had been passed over because of his deformity.
>>
>>> Was there any truth in what Henry Boilingbrook clamed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)
>



But he did, along with his brother Edward "the Black Prince." I wonder why Edward wasn't known as Edward Crouchback.

Since it seems pretty certain that the Crouchback business does not refer to a physical deformity, the next most often-encountered theory as to why that moniker is that he made a habit of wearing a cape or gambeson bearing a big cross, indicating he had been on a Crusade to Jerusalem.

Lots of men had done that. Why did he end up with it attached to his name? Could it be that he made an especially big deal of it, wore that cape on all occasions, and bored everyone to death at every banquet with his tales of the Crusade?

I love the idea of old Crouchback droning on with his war stories.

Kay

Actually, Crouchback was brother to Edward I. John of Eltham was brother to The
Black Prince.





________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, August 4, 2011 10:36:59 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback




--- In , Christine Headley
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)
>

But he did, along with his brother Edward "the Black Prince." I wonder why
Edward wasn't known as Edward Crouchback.

Since it seems pretty certain that the Crouchback business does not refer to a
physical deformity, the next most often-encountered theory as to why that
moniker is that he made a habit of wearing a cape or gambeson bearing a big
cross, indicating he had been on a Crusade to Jerusalem.

Lots of men had done that. Why did he end up with it attached to his name?
Could it be that he made an especially big deal of it, wore that cape on all
occasions, and bored everyone to death at every banquet with his tales of the
Crusade?


I love the idea of old Crouchback droning on with his war stories.

Kay

--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)


Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

On the dubious idea that "crouchback" had something to do with a physical condition, Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, actually did have such a deformity. He was known as "Le Bossu" -- the hunchback. He was the younger of twins, which probably accounted for his condition -- the second-born twin is often breech or footling, and such a delivery can cause damage the nerve trunk of one arm.

Kay

And The Black Prince's brothers were Lionel (Antwerp), John (Ghent), Edmund
(Langley) and Thomas (Woodstock)




________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, August 4, 2011 10:49:23 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback




--- In , Christine Headley
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)


Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund
Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

On the dubious idea that "crouchback" had something to do with a physical
condition, Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, actually did have such a
deformity. He was known as "Le Bossu" -- the hunchback. He was the younger of
twins, which probably accounted for his condition -- the second-born twin is
often breech or footling, and such a delivery can cause damage the nerve trunk
of one arm.

Kay

Just noticed the Re: had devolved to "Couchback"... 

; )    Big, trapunto cross; lots of tassels. Frequently mistaken for a Knole.

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 


--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)
>

But he did, along with his brother Edward "the Black Prince." I wonder why Edward wasn't known as Edward Crouchback.

Since it seems pretty certain that the Crouchback business does not refer to a physical deformity, the next most often-encountered theory as to why that moniker is that he made a habit of wearing a cape or gambeson bearing a big cross, indicating he had been on a Crusade to Jerusalem.

Lots of men had done that. Why did he end up with it attached to his name? Could it be that he made an especially big deal of it, wore that cape on all occasions, and bored everyone to death at every banquet with his tales of the Crusade?

I love the idea of old Crouchback droning on with his war stories.

Kay

Hi again - As a matter of interest, my researches into this story revealed TWO different reasons given for Edmund being supposedly passed over in favour of his brother! I will be lazy and attach the relevant sections cut and pasted from my commentary (sources provided):

(1) The most important [record] is a contemporaneously recorded assertion in front of a commission of doctors of law, bishops and others convened in September 1399 for the purpose of examining the question of deposing Richard II, replacing him with Henry [Bolingbroke], and managing the entire process on a lawful basis. This record was written by Adam of Usk, a well-informed commentator who was an official member of that commission. The assertion put forward was that Richard II was a usurper - as were his predecessors before him as far back as Edward I - because Edward I had not been the eldest son of Henry III. It was based on a legend that Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, known as Crouchback, was in truth Henry III's first-born son but had been superseded by Edward on account of his mental infirmities. The passage reads as follows:



One day, in a council held by the above-mentioned doctors, the point was raised by some that by the right

of blood descent from Edmund, Earl of Lincoln [recte Lancaster], the king [Richard II] ought to be

deprived of the succession in the direct line: they declared that this same Edmund was really the eldest

son of King Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness he had been denied his birthright and

replaced by his younger brother, Edward.



Quondam die in concilio per dictos doctores habito, per quosdam fuit tactum quod iure sanguinis ex

persona Edmundi comitis Lyncolln, asserentes ipsum Edmundum Regis Henrici tercii primogenitum

esse, set ipsius geniture ordine propter ipsius fatuitatem excluso, Edwardo suo fratre se iuniore in huius

locum translato, sibi regni successionem directa linea debere compediri.



However, (2) The fact that it was a well established tradition in Henry's family is illustrated by the second of our records of the Crouchback claim, in the continuation of the chronicle entitled Eulogium (Historiarum sive Temporis). Here a claim on precisely this basis is recorded as being made in Parliament by John of Gaunt on behalf of his son. The dating is erratic, but the Parliament referred to has been established as taking place in 1394.


In this Parliament the Duke of Lancaster [John of Gaunt] requested that his son Henry be adjudged the

heir to the realm of England; the Earl of March contradicted him, asserting his descent from Lord Lionel,

second son of King Edward [III]. The duke challenged this by saying that King Henry III had two [sons],

Edmund the elder and firstborn, and Edward. However, Edmund had suffered a broken back, and on this

account judged himself to be unsuitable to be crowned king; hence their father made them agree thus,

that Edward would reign, and after him the heirs of Edmund, and he gave Edmund the earldom of

Lancaster; and from him was descended his [Gaunt's] son Henry in right of his mother, who was a

granddaughter [recte great-granddaughter] of the said Edmund. To which the earl replied saying that this

was not true, 'but in fact Edward was the first-born, and Edmund was a most good-looking man and a

noble knight, as openly stated in the chronicles.' The king, however, commanded them to be silent.



In hoc parliamento dux Lancastriæ petiit quod filius suus Henricus judicaretur hæres regni Angliæ;

Cui contradixit comes Marchiæ asserens se descendisse a domino Leonello, secundo filio Edwardi Regis.

Econtrario dux dicebat quod Rex Henricus Tertius habuit duos [filios], Edmundum seniorem et primogenitum, et Edwardum. Qui tamen Edmundus dorsum habuit fractum, et propter hoc judicavit seipsum indignum esse ad coronam; quare pater eorum eos sic componere fecit, quod Edwardus regnaret, et post eum hæredes Edmundi, et dedit Edmundo comitatum Lancastriæ; et ab eo descendit Henricus filius ejus jure matris, quæ fuit filia dicti Edmundi. Cui respondit comes, dicens, hoc non esse verum, 'sed Edwardus fuit primogenitus, et Edmundus vir elegantissimus et nobilis miles, prout in chronicis patenter continetur.' Rex autem imposuit eis silentium.


End of quotes. Since it didn't serve my research purposes to investigate why there were two different stories (and my paper was long enough as it was!) I didn't pursue this contradiction. It would be nice if any of our forum members happen to know of any other contemporaneous references to Edmund that might shed light on the legends that circulated about him. Clearly there must have been a third version, because it is now assumed that he was called Crouchback because he wore the crusader's cross. Any contributions to the debate welcomed!

(By the way, I'm sure everyone will agree this isn't OT because the entire WOTR saga emanated from what we're talking about, n'est-ce pas?)
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback
--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)


Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

On the dubious idea that "crouchback" had something to do with a physical condition, Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, actually did have such a deformity. He was known as "Le Bossu" -- the hunchback. He was the younger of twins, which probably accounted for his condition -- the second-born twin is often breech or footling, and such a delivery can cause damage the nerve trunk of one arm.

Kay

(Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)

Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

LOL good one--sorry my spelling isnt the best---Edmund the man to lazy to be king lol



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback


 
Hi again - As a matter of interest, my researches into this story revealed TWO different reasons given for Edmund being supposedly passed over in favour of his brother! I will be lazy and attach the relevant sections cut and pasted from my commentary (sources provided):

(1) The most important [record] is a contemporaneously recorded assertion in front of a commission of doctors of law, bishops and others convened in September 1399 for the purpose of examining the question of deposing Richard II, replacing him with Henry [Bolingbroke], and managing the entire process on a lawful basis. This record was written by Adam of Usk, a well-informed commentator who was an official member of that commission. The assertion put forward was that Richard II was a usurper - as were his predecessors before him as far back as Edward I - because Edward I had not been the eldest son of Henry III. It was based on a legend that Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, known as Crouchback, was in truth Henry III's first-born son but had been superseded by Edward on account of his mental infirmities. The passage reads as follows:

One day, in a council held by the above-mentioned doctors, the point was raised by some that by the right

of blood descent from Edmund, Earl of Lincoln [recte Lancaster], the king [Richard II] ought to be

deprived of the succession in the direct line: they declared that this same Edmund was really the eldest

son of King Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness he had been denied his birthright and

replaced by his younger brother, Edward.

Quondam die in concilio per dictos doctores habito, per quosdam fuit tactum quod iure sanguinis ex

persona Edmundi comitis Lyncolln, asserentes ipsum Edmundum Regis Henrici tercii primogenitum

esse, set ipsius geniture ordine propter ipsius fatuitatem excluso, Edwardo suo fratre se iuniore in huius

locum translato, sibi regni successionem directa linea debere compediri.

However, (2) The fact that it was a well established tradition in Henry's family is illustrated by the second of our records of the Crouchback claim, in the continuation of the chronicle entitled Eulogium (Historiarum sive Temporis). Here a claim on precisely this basis is recorded as being made in Parliament by John of Gaunt on behalf of his son. The dating is erratic, but the Parliament referred to has been established as taking place in 1394.


In this Parliament the Duke of Lancaster [John of Gaunt] requested that his son Henry be adjudged the

heir to the realm of England; the Earl of March contradicted him, asserting his descent from Lord Lionel,

second son of King Edward [III]. The duke challenged this by saying that King Henry III had two [sons],

Edmund the elder and firstborn, and Edward. However, Edmund had suffered a broken back, and on this

account judged himself to be unsuitable to be crowned king; hence their father made them agree thus,

that Edward would reign, and after him the heirs of Edmund, and he gave Edmund the earldom of

Lancaster; and from him was descended his [Gaunt's] son Henry in right of his mother, who was a

granddaughter [recte great-granddaughter] of the said Edmund. To which the earl replied saying that this

was not true, 'but in fact Edward was the first-born, and Edmund was a most good-looking man and a

noble knight, as openly stated in the chronicles.' The king, however, commanded them to be silent.

In hoc parliamento dux Lancastriæ petiit quod filius suus Henricus judicaretur hæres regni Angliæ;

Cui contradixit comes Marchiæ asserens se descendisse a domino Leonello, secundo filio Edwardi Regis.

Econtrario dux dicebat quod Rex Henricus Tertius habuit duos [filios], Edmundum seniorem et primogenitum, et Edwardum. Qui tamen Edmundus dorsum habuit fractum, et propter hoc judicavit seipsum indignum esse ad coronam; quare pater eorum eos sic componere fecit, quod Edwardus regnaret, et post eum hæredes Edmundi, et dedit Edmundo comitatum Lancastriæ; et ab eo descendit Henricus filius ejus jure matris, quæ fuit filia dicti Edmundi. Cui respondit comes, dicens, hoc non esse verum, 'sed Edwardus fuit primogenitus, et Edmundus vir elegantissimus et nobilis miles, prout in chronicis patenter continetur.' Rex autem imposuit eis silentium.

End of quotes. Since it didn't serve my research purposes to investigate why there were two different stories (and my paper was long enough as it was!) I didn't pursue this contradiction. It would be nice if any of our forum members happen to know of any other contemporaneous references to Edmund that might shed light on the legends that circulated about him. Clearly there must have been a third version, because it is now assumed that he was called Crouchback because he wore the crusader's cross. Any contributions to the debate welcomed!

(By the way, I'm sure everyone will agree this isn't OT because the entire WOTR saga emanated from what we're talking about, n'est-ce pas?)
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback
--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)

Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

On the dubious idea that "crouchback" had something to do with a physical condition, Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, actually did have such a deformity. He was known as "Le Bossu" -- the hunchback. He was the younger of twins, which probably accounted for his condition -- the second-born twin is often breech or footling, and such a delivery can cause damage the nerve trunk of one arm.

Kay

Sorry all those blank lines were inserted into my quotes - they looked fine when I posted them!
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback



Hi again - As a matter of interest, my researches into this story revealed TWO different reasons given for Edmund being supposedly passed over in favour of his brother! I will be lazy and attach the relevant sections cut and pasted from my commentary (sources provided):

(1) The most important [record] is a contemporaneously recorded assertion in front of a commission of doctors of law, bishops and others convened in September 1399 for the purpose of examining the question of deposing Richard II, replacing him with Henry [Bolingbroke], and managing the entire process on a lawful basis. This record was written by Adam of Usk, a well-informed commentator who was an official member of that commission. The assertion put forward was that Richard II was a usurper - as were his predecessors before him as far back as Edward I - because Edward I had not been the eldest son of Henry III. It was based on a legend that Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, known as Crouchback, was in truth Henry III's first-born son but had been superseded by Edward on account of his mental infirmities. The passage reads as follows:

One day, in a council held by the above-mentioned doctors, the point was raised by some that by the right

of blood descent from Edmund, Earl of Lincoln [recte Lancaster], the king [Richard II] ought to be

deprived of the succession in the direct line: they declared that this same Edmund was really the eldest

son of King Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness he had been denied his birthright and

replaced by his younger brother, Edward.

Quondam die in concilio per dictos doctores habito, per quosdam fuit tactum quod iure sanguinis ex

persona Edmundi comitis Lyncolln, asserentes ipsum Edmundum Regis Henrici tercii primogenitum

esse, set ipsius geniture ordine propter ipsius fatuitatem excluso, Edwardo suo fratre se iuniore in huius

locum translato, sibi regni successionem directa linea debere compediri.

However, (2) The fact that it was a well established tradition in Henry's family is illustrated by the second of our records of the Crouchback claim, in the continuation of the chronicle entitled Eulogium (Historiarum sive Temporis). Here a claim on precisely this basis is recorded as being made in Parliament by John of Gaunt on behalf of his son. The dating is erratic, but the Parliament referred to has been established as taking place in 1394.


In this Parliament the Duke of Lancaster [John of Gaunt] requested that his son Henry be adjudged the

heir to the realm of England; the Earl of March contradicted him, asserting his descent from Lord Lionel,

second son of King Edward [III]. The duke challenged this by saying that King Henry III had two [sons],

Edmund the elder and firstborn, and Edward. However, Edmund had suffered a broken back, and on this

account judged himself to be unsuitable to be crowned king; hence their father made them agree thus,

that Edward would reign, and after him the heirs of Edmund, and he gave Edmund the earldom of

Lancaster; and from him was descended his [Gaunt's] son Henry in right of his mother, who was a

granddaughter [recte great-granddaughter] of the said Edmund. To which the earl replied saying that this

was not true, 'but in fact Edward was the first-born, and Edmund was a most good-looking man and a

noble knight, as openly stated in the chronicles.' The king, however, commanded them to be silent.

In hoc parliamento dux Lancastriæ petiit quod filius suus Henricus judicaretur hæres regni Angliæ;

Cui contradixit comes Marchiæ asserens se descendisse a domino Leonello, secundo filio Edwardi Regis.

Econtrario dux dicebat quod Rex Henricus Tertius habuit duos [filios], Edmundum seniorem et primogenitum, et Edwardum. Qui tamen Edmundus dorsum habuit fractum, et propter hoc judicavit seipsum indignum esse ad coronam; quare pater eorum eos sic componere fecit, quod Edwardus regnaret, et post eum hæredes Edmundi, et dedit Edmundo comitatum Lancastriæ; et ab eo descendit Henricus filius ejus jure matris, quæ fuit filia dicti Edmundi. Cui respondit comes, dicens, hoc non esse verum, 'sed Edwardus fuit primogenitus, et Edmundus vir elegantissimus et nobilis miles, prout in chronicis patenter continetur.' Rex autem imposuit eis silentium.

End of quotes. Since it didn't serve my research purposes to investigate why there were two different stories (and my paper was long enough as it was!) I didn't pursue this contradiction. It would be nice if any of our forum members happen to know of any other contemporaneous references to Edmund that might shed light on the legends that circulated about him. Clearly there must have been a third version, because it is now assumed that he was called Crouchback because he wore the crusader's cross. Any contributions to the debate welcomed!

(By the way, I'm sure everyone will agree this isn't OT because the entire WOTR saga emanated from what we're talking about, n'est-ce pas?)
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback
--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> There was an article on this by John Ashdown-Hill in The Ricardian in
> 2003 (that's the big murray and blue one in honour of Anne Sutton). It
> was well known in Tudor times - Charles V was aware that his claim to
> the English throne was 'better than' Henry VIII's!
>
> (Edmund Couchback sounds too lazy to go on a crusade....)

Nice catch, Christine. I hadn't noticed that this thread is called "Edmund Couchback" rather than Crouchback.

On the dubious idea that "crouchback" had something to do with a physical condition, Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, actually did have such a deformity. He was known as "Le Bossu" -- the hunchback. He was the younger of twins, which probably accounted for his condition -- the second-born twin is often breech or footling, and such a delivery can cause damage the nerve trunk of one arm.

Kay

Something else to think about regarding the story of Edmund being the actual eldest son of Henry III but that he was demoted, you might say, in favor of his younger brother Edward because he (Edmund) was deformed and thus not kingly material -- when would this secret transposition have occurred?

The two brothers' birthdates are six and a half years apart: 17 June 1239 and 16 January 1245. At what age could you substitute a child for one six and a half years younger or older and expect no one to notice? (It would be a different matter with the Duke of York's two sons also named Edward and Edmund -- they were born just over a year apart.)

If such a substitution had been made after childhood, when an age difference is not likely to be as obvious, one would expect the demoted one to have made some objections and there wouldn't be a "story" that Edmund was actually the elder, rather Edmund likely would have told everyone including the Pope about his mistreatment.

Just a thought.

Kay

Hi Kay:
 
I like your thought!
 
Please forgive my ignorance--I've been assuming that Edward was simply 'appointed' (for lack of a better word) as heir rather than Edmund.  I had no idea it was supposed to be a secret transposition--I do not see how such a thing would have been possible?
 
Margie

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 

Something else to think about regarding the story of Edmund being the actual eldest son of Henry III but that he was demoted, you might say, in favor of his younger brother Edward because he (Edmund) was deformed and thus not kingly material -- when would this secret transposition have occurred?

The two brothers' birthdates are six and a half years apart: 17 June 1239 and 16 January 1245. At what age could you substitute a child for one six and a half years younger or older and expect no one to notice? (It would be a different matter with the Duke of York's two sons also named Edward and Edmund -- they were born just over a year apart.)

If such a substitution had been made after childhood, when an age difference is not likely to be as obvious, one would expect the demoted one to have made some objections and there wouldn't be a "story" that Edmund was actually the elder, rather Edmund likely would have told everyone including the Pope about his mistreatment.

Just a thought.

Kay

our modern word peerage derives from parage. parage was the ability of the whole family to inherit lands/chattel equally. this is why you see terms like knights fees in old land documents. or a 1/2 fee or 1/10 fee. the whole family of inheritors would have to gather up the necessary requirements to meet a or one knights fee. at least one member of the family would have to serve as the knight. they either volunteered or were nominated/delegated.
 
primogeniture..where the eldest inherits...started to become more popular as the families began to realise that the land holdings were getting thinner and thinner with each generation.
 
there is even ultimogeniture..where the youngest inherits all.
 
inheritance rules were not fixed and solid in the era being discussed. so, the choosing of a younger child over an elder child would not necessarily have raised a lot of eyebrows.
especially, if the child was considered "cursed" by the virtue of a physical or mental deficiency.
 
however, i do think the nickname of crouchback is more likely to have come from the crusader association.
r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.
 
roslyn
 

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:42:43 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 

Something else to think about regarding the story of Edmund being the actual eldest son of Henry III but that he was demoted, you might say, in favor of his younger brother Edward because he (Edmund) was deformed and thus not kingly material -- when would this secret transposition have occurred?

The two brothers' birthdates are six and a half years apart: 17 June 1239 and 16 January 1245. At what age could you substitute a child for one six and a half years younger or older and expect no one to notice? (It would be a different matter with the Duke of York's two sons also named Edward and Edmund -- they were born just over a year apart.)

If such a substitution had been made after childhood, when an age difference is not likely to be as obvious, one would expect the demoted one to have made some objections and there wouldn't be a "story" that Edmund was actually the elder, rather Edmund likely would have told everyone including the Pope about his mistreatment.

Just a thought.

Kay

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kay:
>  
> I like your thought!
>  
> Please forgive my ignorance--I've been assuming that Edward was simply 'appointed' (for lack of a better word) as heir rather than Edmund.  I had no idea it was supposed to be a secret transposition--I do not see how such a thing would have been possible?
>  
> Margie


My thought was (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that such a switch had actually been made) that there would have been a big, maybe overriding, element of secrecy -- otherwise it wouldn't have been a "story" but rather a documented fact, maybe ratified by Parliament or at least the King's Council.

It's all smoke and mirrors and wistful thinking, though, I'm sure. The Staffords always lusted after the crown, generation upon generation.

Kay

That's an interesting take on how the rumor that Richard was a hunchback could have started

--- On Fri, 8/12/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, August 12, 2011, 9:27 PM
















 









our modern word peerage derives from parage. parage was the ability of the whole family to inherit lands/chattel equally. this is why you see terms like knights fees in old land documents. or a 1/2 fee or 1/10 fee. the whole family of inheritors would have to gather up the necessary requirements to meet a or one knights fee. at least one member of the family would have to serve as the knight. they either volunteered or were nominated/delegated.

 

primogeniture..where the eldest inherits...started to become more popular as the families began to realise that the land holdings were getting thinner and thinner with each generation.

 

there is even ultimogeniture..where the youngest inherits all.

 

inheritance rules were not fixed and solid in the era being discussed. so, the choosing of a younger child over an elder child would not necessarily have raised a lot of eyebrows.

especially, if the child was considered "cursed" by the virtue of a physical or mental deficiency.

 

however, i do think the nickname of crouchback is more likely to have come from the crusader association.

r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.

 

roslyn

 



From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>

To:

Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:42:43 PM

Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback



 



Something else to think about regarding the story of Edmund being the actual eldest son of Henry III but that he was demoted, you might say, in favor of his younger brother Edward because he (Edmund) was deformed and thus not kingly material -- when would this secret transposition have occurred?



The two brothers' birthdates are six and a half years apart: 17 June 1239 and 16 January 1245. At what age could you substitute a child for one six and a half years younger or older and expect no one to notice? (It would be a different matter with the Duke of York's two sons also named Edward and Edmund -- they were born just over a year apart.)



If such a substitution had been made after childhood, when an age difference is not likely to be as obvious, one would expect the demoted one to have made some objections and there wouldn't be a "story" that Edmund was actually the elder, rather Edmund likely would have told everyone including the Pope about his mistreatment.



Just a thought.



Kay

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting take on how the rumor that Richard was a hunchback could have started:


[fayrerose said]

> r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.

It would be interesting to sift through the language in the time of R III and somewhat before, and see if "crouchback" as in overtly or ostentatiously religious was still in vogue.

And if, in fact, Richard was all that religious. He was more devout than most, it seems from his support of various religious orders and other evidence. But he certainly didn't go on a Crusade - there hadn't been one in a couple of centuries -- and I've never read that he wore a garment with a big cross on it, so would be have been deemed a crouchback for those reasons?

I think he did have some unevenness or imbalance in his shoulders, and the crouchback business was hateful exaggeration by his enemies. He certainly wasn't a hunchback, and in the piece of art in which one of the young men is supposedly him, he is slender and graceful-looking. But all the men are wearing the short padded jackets in vogue at the time.

I don't understand this business of how saying that he was not a physically perfect specimen of manhood is somehow slandering him. That's harking back to the Medieval idea of good = shapely, handsome, and fair of skin and hair, and dark coloring and physical imperfection = bad and evil.

Kay

Kay

Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:23:33 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 


--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting take on how the rumor that Richard was a hunchback could have started:

[fayrerose said]

> r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.

It would be interesting to sift through the language in the time of R III and somewhat before, and see if "crouchback" as in overtly or ostentatiously religious was still in vogue.

And if, in fact, Richard was all that religious. He was more devout than most, it seems from his support of various religious orders and other evidence. But he certainly didn't go on a Crusade - there hadn't been one in a couple of centuries -- and I've never read that he wore a garment with a big cross on it, so would be have been deemed a crouchback for those reasons?

I think he did have some unevenness or imbalance in his shoulders, and the crouchback business was hateful exaggeration by his enemies. He certainly wasn't a hunchback, and in the piece of art in which one of the young men is supposedly him, he is slender and graceful-looking. But all the men are wearing the short padded jackets in vogue at the time.

I don't understand this business of how saying that he was not a physically perfect specimen of manhood is somehow slandering him. That's harking back to the Medieval idea of good = shapely, handsome, and fair of skin and hair, and dark coloring and physical imperfection = bad and evil.

Kay

Kay

And we have to remember that Crouchback's brother, Edward was 'Longshanks'.



________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:38:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback


 
Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:23:33 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback

 

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting take on how the rumor that Richard was a hunchback could have started:

[fayrerose said]

> r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.

It would be interesting to sift through the language in the time of R III and somewhat before, and see if "crouchback" as in overtly or ostentatiously religious was still in vogue.

And if, in fact, Richard was all that religious. He was more devout than most, it seems from his support of various religious orders and other evidence. But he certainly didn't go on a Crusade - there hadn't been one in a couple of centuries -- and I've never read that he wore a garment with a big cross on it, so would be have been deemed a crouchback for those reasons?

I think he did have some unevenness or imbalance in his shoulders, and the crouchback business was hateful exaggeration by his enemies. He certainly wasn't a hunchback, and in the piece of art in which one of the young men is supposedly him, he is slender and graceful-looking. But all the men are wearing the short padded jackets in vogue at the time.

I don't understand this business of how saying that he was not a physically perfect specimen of manhood is somehow slandering him. That's harking back to the Medieval idea of good = shapely, handsome, and fair of skin and hair, and dark coloring and physical imperfection = bad and evil.

Kay

Kay

I think you make a good point.  From the distance of history, I think it is easy to forget sometimes that we are talking about real human beings here with all the quirks that go with being human and being part of families and communities. 
 
Margie

From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback


 

Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:23:33 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback

 

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting take on how the rumor that Richard was a hunchback could have started:

[fayrerose said]

> r3 was called a crouchback. richard was well known for his religious views. labelling him a crouchback is probably what brought forward the crookback/hunchback rumour. politics is nasty business..and the tudors as a whole unit were entirely nasty business.

It would be interesting to sift through the language in the time of R III and somewhat before, and see if "crouchback" as in overtly or ostentatiously religious was still in vogue.

And if, in fact, Richard was all that religious. He was more devout than most, it seems from his support of various religious orders and other evidence. But he certainly didn't go on a Crusade - there hadn't been one in a couple of centuries -- and I've never read that he wore a garment with a big cross on it, so would be have been deemed a crouchback for those reasons?

I think he did have some unevenness or imbalance in his shoulders, and the crouchback business was hateful exaggeration by his enemies. He certainly wasn't a hunchback, and in the piece of art in which one of the young men is supposedly him, he is slender and graceful-looking. But all the men are wearing the short padded jackets in vogue at the time.

I don't understand this business of how saying that he was not a physically perfect specimen of manhood is somehow slandering him. That's harking back to the Medieval idea of good = shapely, handsome, and fair of skin and hair, and dark coloring and physical imperfection = bad and evil.

Kay

Kay

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".


I had an aunt with the beautiful real name Mary Edith who was known as Dutch all her life. She was only 5-2, in a large family in which all the men were over six feet tall and all the other women were at least 5-8...for some reason Dutch people were assumed to be very short.

Kay

My Mother was 1 of 9.  The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 


--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".

I had an aunt with the beautiful real name Mary Edith who was known as Dutch all her life. She was only 5-2, in a large family in which all the men were over six feet tall and all the other women were at least 5-8...for some reason Dutch people were assumed to be very short.

Kay

I grew up in "small town" Ontario, so I often got "Will" or "Willy". Dad even called me "Will-yummy at times". Never got "Liam" though. Another local character was called "Great Day" Stinson because he walked around saying "She's a great day, ain't she?"



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:18:29 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 


--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe he slouched as a teenager. Nicknames come from all kinds of weird places. A guy I knew while growing up in Orangeville, Ontario was nicknamed 'Grunt' for good reason. My first MacDonald ancestor in Canada was John The Patriarch. His eldest son, John was 'Jock o' the Pines', while another son was "Quaker Dan".

I had an aunt with the beautiful real name Mary Edith who was known as Dutch all her life. She was only 5-2, in a large family in which all the men were over six feet tall and all the other women were at least 5-8...for some reason Dutch people were assumed to be very short.

Kay

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9.  The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!


Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay

LOL!  No she was from north Louisiana, but not too far from Texas.
 
Was Richard ever referred to as Crouchback during his lifetime, or only after his death?

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback


 


--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9.  The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!

Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay

i read in one report about the time of his death..to r3 being referred to as a crouchback. but i can't find it again. i believe it was in yorkshire records, but i could be wrong. but it was this record that gave me the feeling that the nickname crouch back was to do more with religion than physical appearance.
and..some nicknames are hurtful.
our neighbour, when i was a kid was phillip graham..and was cruelly named piggy. he was over weight and the taunt was hey phillip graham..where is the "i"..and a chorus of oinks would follow..along with hey piggy..wanna play pig in the middle.
the name piggy was used more than his real name. he was a nice kid too. he taught me how to play chess. btw..even some of the adults referred to him as piggy.
i'm assuming his older brother started the name calling..that became phillip graham's nickname. he came to the neighbourhood with the nickname.
my daughter when in her diaper age..was referred to as stinker at times..i had to step in and stop her paternal older half sibs from making that her commonly used nickname. they were taking the name to the neighbourhood kids during one very "long" summer visit. their mother raised two very socially dysfunctional kids. i won't even have them in my home now that they are adults. my daughter is now 15. she and her father can go visit them, but i won't have them here.
roslyn

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:22:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback


 

LOL!  No she was from north Louisiana, but not too far from Texas.
 
Was Richard ever referred to as Crouchback during his lifetime, or only after his death?

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback

 

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9.  The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!

Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay

It's true nicknames can be cruel .  I never allowed my children to make fun of others when they were around me, I hope they never did.  But, some nicknames are fun as long as the person doesn't mind.  My Mother was called Duckie by everyone and she liked it!
 
Nicknames in the Middle Ages seem to be common. 

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback


 
i read in one report about the time of his death..to r3 being referred to as a crouchback. but i can't find it again. i believe it was in yorkshire records, but i could be wrong. but it was this record that gave me the feeling that the nickname crouch back was to do more with religion than physical appearance.
and..some nicknames are hurtful.
our neighbour, when i was a kid was phillip graham..and was cruelly named piggy. he was over weight and the taunt was hey phillip graham..where is the "i"..and a chorus of oinks would follow..along with hey piggy..wanna play pig in the middle.
the name piggy was used more than his real name. he was a nice kid too. he taught me how to play chess. btw..even some of the adults referred to him as piggy.
i'm assuming his older brother started the name calling..that became phillip graham's nickname. he came to the neighbourhood with the nickname.
my daughter when in her diaper age..was referred to as stinker at times..i had to step in and stop her paternal older half sibs from making that her commonly used nickname. they were taking the name to the neighbourhood kids during one very "long" summer visit. their mother raised two very socially dysfunctional kids. i won't even have them in my home now that they are adults. my daughter is now 15. she and her father can go visit them, but i won't have them here.
roslyn

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:22:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback

 

LOL!  No she was from north Louisiana, but not too far from Texas.
 
Was Richard ever referred to as Crouchback during his lifetime, or only after his death?

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback

 

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9.  The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!

Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay

Hi Roslyn - I haven't had time to go very far into the comment you refer to, but yes, of course you're correct that there was one (and one only!) comment describing Richard as "an hypocryte, a crochebake & beried in a dike like a dogge". This is recorded as spoken in the course of an altercation by a Yorkshireman - William Burton, schoolmaster - in the late 15th century under Tudor (May 1491) after a dispute had arisen which was brought to the notice of the York city council, hence it appeared in the York Civic Records. His challenger, John Paynter, "said that he lied, for the Kynge's good grace hath beried hym like a noble gentilman".

The dispute was because Paynter had claimed that the Duke of Northumberland betrayed Richard at Bosworth, which started the argument in the first place, so he was obviously a supporter of Richard III even so many years into Henry VII's reign and not afraid to be aggressive about it! There must have been quite a furore for the matter to be referred to the city elders, and the report covers several pages (I have the old Davis version, pages 221-24). Davis assumes that Richard's person must have been "familiarly known" to Burton and hence the remark must be true, but I feel this is rather a stretch. It doesn't take into account the fact that by 1491 the blackening of Richard's name was a fact of ordinary life, and if the chap was drunk or in a fit of anger he was likely to have used any current term of abuse in the heat of an argument whether or not he knew it for a fact - I'm sure we've all come across abuse hurled at people which the abuser knows perfectly well isn't true. I myself have had totally untrue things said to my face which the person even admitted afterwards were false but were simply spoken in anger. The main point is that we have no sober record of such a thing ever being said about Richard in his 30-odd years of life.

Regarding the usage of 'crouchback', I recently came across an item of information, purely by accident, that the Friars of the Holy Cross were known as the 'Crutched Friars'. Which seems to belong to the same family of meanings as the wearing of an image of the cross on one's back. There do seem to be two different strands of meanings for 'crouchback', don't there?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback



i read in one report about the time of his death..to r3 being referred to as a crouchback. but i can't find it again. i believe it was in yorkshire records, but i could be wrong. but it was this record that gave me the feeling that the nickname crouch back was to do more with religion than physical appearance.
and..some nicknames are hurtful.
our neighbour, when i was a kid was phillip graham..and was cruelly named piggy. he was over weight and the taunt was hey phillip graham..where is the "i"..and a chorus of oinks would follow..along with hey piggy..wanna play pig in the middle.
the name piggy was used more than his real name. he was a nice kid too. he taught me how to play chess. btw..even some of the adults referred to him as piggy.
i'm assuming his older brother started the name calling..that became phillip graham's nickname. he came to the neighbourhood with the nickname.
my daughter when in her diaper age..was referred to as stinker at times..i had to step in and stop her paternal older half sibs from making that her commonly used nickname. they were taking the name to the neighbourhood kids during one very "long" summer visit. their mother raised two very socially dysfunctional kids. i won't even have them in my home now that they are adults. my daughter is now 15. she and her father can go visit them, but i won't have them here.
roslyn

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:22:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback



LOL! No she was from north Louisiana, but not too far from Texas.

Was Richard ever referred to as Crouchback during his lifetime, or only after his death?

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback



--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9. The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!

Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay

Annette wrote:

<snip>
>
> Regarding the usage of 'crouchback', I recently came across an item of information, purely by accident, that the Friars of the Holy Cross were known as the 'Crutched Friars'. Which seems to belong to the same family of meanings as the wearing of an image of the cross on one's back. There do seem to be two different strands of meanings for 'crouchback', don't there?
> Regards, Annette

Carol responds:

I've snipped your excellent response to the "crouchback" incident in Yorkshire. The person insulting Richard must have been a supporter of the Earl of Northumberland. Was he alive at the time (or recently murdered by irate Yorkshiremen)? That might explain the venom of the insult, which was false on all counts. (Richard didn't die in a ditch like a dog, either.)

Regarding the etymology of "crouchback," much as I'd like to find a connection with "cross" (derived from the Latin "crux"), it seems that "crook," "crouch," "crutch," and even "crotch" are all derived from Germanic words meaning "hook" (think of a shepherd's crook), none of which helps us at all with Edmund Crouchback. (Of course, "crouch" and "crutch" could have been associated with "cross/crux" through false etymology.)

As for Richard, possibly the insulter had heard the rumor apparently started by John Rous (after Richard's death) that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other and exaggerated it into a crooked back (which we know that Richard did not have).

On another note, several people have mentioned nicknames (as opposed to epithets). Does anyone know of any evidence that Richard was called Dickon in his lifetime, or was the "Dickon thy master is bought and sold" note pinned to Norfolk's tent purely Shakespeare's invention? The closest thing I know of is William Stanley's snide reference to "Old Dick," which is absurd given their relative ages. (Poor Richard never even reached middle age as defined by Merriam-Webster (45 to 64).

Carol, who wanted to post yesterday to honor Richard's memory on the anniversary of Bosworth but spent the time catching up on recent postings instead

Just a quickie - Northumberland was murdered in 1489.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback



Annette wrote:

<snip>
>
> Regarding the usage of 'crouchback', I recently came across an item of information, purely by accident, that the Friars of the Holy Cross were known as the 'Crutched Friars'. Which seems to belong to the same family of meanings as the wearing of an image of the cross on one's back. There do seem to be two different strands of meanings for 'crouchback', don't there?
> Regards, Annette

Carol responds:

I've snipped your excellent response to the "crouchback" incident in Yorkshire. The person insulting Richard must have been a supporter of the Earl of Northumberland. Was he alive at the time (or recently murdered by irate Yorkshiremen)? That might explain the venom of the insult, which was false on all counts. (Richard didn't die in a ditch like a dog, either.)

Regarding the etymology of "crouchback," much as I'd like to find a connection with "cross" (derived from the Latin "crux"), it seems that "crook," "crouch," "crutch," and even "crotch" are all derived from Germanic words meaning "hook" (think of a shepherd's crook), none of which helps us at all with Edmund Crouchback. (Of course, "crouch" and "crutch" could have been associated with "cross/crux" through false etymology.)

As for Richard, possibly the insulter had heard the rumor apparently started by John Rous (after Richard's death) that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other and exaggerated it into a crooked back (which we know that Richard did not have).

On another note, several people have mentioned nicknames (as opposed to epithets). Does anyone know of any evidence that Richard was called Dickon in his lifetime, or was the "Dickon thy master is bought and sold" note pinned to Norfolk's tent purely Shakespeare's invention? The closest thing I know of is William Stanley's snide reference to "Old Dick," which is absurd given their relative ages. (Poor Richard never even reached middle age as defined by Merriam-Webster (45 to 64).

Carol, who wanted to post yesterday to honor Richard's memory on the anniversary of Bosworth but spent the time catching up on recent postings instead

It is arguable whether the Norman/Plantagenet monarchy was ever strictly hereditary. William I passed over his eldest son in favour of William Rufus for the English throne (Robert got Normandy, although he subsequently lost it to his youngest brother Henry I) and Richard I's hereditary heir was Arthur, not John. And isn't the argument about who was to succeed Henry II after the death of Henry the Young King, as so skilfully portrayed in "The Lion in Winter", basically true ?

Richard G

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> The puzzle is why Henry didn't simply claim the throne as heir male,
> which he undoubtedly was. It's probably safest to say that he
> himself probably thought that the Mortimer (Earl of March) claim was
> valid. However, he, Henry was the man in possession. Later he got
> Parliament to entail the throne on his children, in effect moving
> over to a statutory monarchy rather than a strictly hereditary one.
>
> Brian W

yes, that is the record i was talking about. now i just need to find where i first found it.
i should have it in my files somewhere, but they aren't too organised. i gather and glean, and much of the info i retain in my head.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 8/23/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback
To:
Received: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 7:08 AM


 



Hi Roslyn - I haven't had time to go very far into the comment you refer to, but yes, of course you're correct that there was one (and one only!) comment describing Richard as "an hypocryte, a crochebake & beried in a dike like a dogge". This is recorded as spoken in the course of an altercation by a Yorkshireman - William Burton, schoolmaster - in the late 15th century under Tudor (May 1491) after a dispute had arisen which was brought to the notice of the York city council, hence it appeared in the York Civic Records. His challenger, John Paynter, "said that he lied, for the Kynge's good grace hath beried hym like a noble gentilman".

The dispute was because Paynter had claimed that the Duke of Northumberland betrayed Richard at Bosworth, which started the argument in the first place, so he was obviously a supporter of Richard III even so many years into Henry VII's reign and not afraid to be aggressive about it! There must have been quite a furore for the matter to be referred to the city elders, and the report covers several pages (I have the old Davis version, pages 221-24). Davis assumes that Richard's person must have been "familiarly known" to Burton and hence the remark must be true, but I feel this is rather a stretch. It doesn't take into account the fact that by 1491 the blackening of Richard's name was a fact of ordinary life, and if the chap was drunk or in a fit of anger he was likely to have used any current term of abuse in the heat of an argument whether or not he knew it for a fact - I'm sure we've all come across abuse hurled at people which the abuser knows
perfectly well isn't true. I myself have had totally untrue things said to my face which the person even admitted afterwards were false but were simply spoken in anger. The main point is that we have no sober record of such a thing ever being said about Richard in his 30-odd years of life.

Regarding the usage of 'crouchback', I recently came across an item of information, purely by accident, that the Friars of the Holy Cross were known as the 'Crutched Friars'. Which seems to belong to the same family of meanings as the wearing of an image of the cross on one's back. There do seem to be two different strands of meanings for 'crouchback', don't there?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback

i read in one report about the time of his death..to r3 being referred to as a crouchback. but i can't find it again. i believe it was in yorkshire records, but i could be wrong. but it was this record that gave me the feeling that the nickname crouch back was to do more with religion than physical appearance.
and..some nicknames are hurtful.
our neighbour, when i was a kid was phillip graham..and was cruelly named piggy. he was over weight and the taunt was hey phillip graham..where is the "i"..and a chorus of oinks would follow..along with hey piggy..wanna play pig in the middle.
the name piggy was used more than his real name. he was a nice kid too. he taught me how to play chess. btw..even some of the adults referred to him as piggy.
i'm assuming his older brother started the name calling..that became phillip graham's nickname. he came to the neighbourhood with the nickname.
my daughter when in her diaper age..was referred to as stinker at times..i had to step in and stop her paternal older half sibs from making that her commonly used nickname. they were taking the name to the neighbourhood kids during one very "long" summer visit. their mother raised two very socially dysfunctional kids. i won't even have them in my home now that they are adults. my daughter is now 15. she and her father can go visit them, but i won't have them here.
roslyn

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:22:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edmund Couchback

LOL! No she was from north Louisiana, but not too far from Texas.

Was Richard ever referred to as Crouchback during his lifetime, or only after his death?

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund Couchback

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> My Mother was 1 of 9. The first 5 all had nicknames, Sweetie, PeeWee, Duckie, Pat (his name was Moise?), Chubby........... My Mother was Duckie, because her Father said she waddled like a duck!

Was this in Texas, mayhap? Texans are big on nicknames as well as those double names such as Tommy Sue and Jim Bob.

My mother's name was Adelene Mae, and for reasons unknown, her nickname was Bobbie. Another of her sisters was named Viola Jean, and all her life she was known as Polly, because as a toddler she wanted to join in conversations so she would repeat what someone just said.

But to get back to Richard III, he may have been called a crouchback by his detractors, but it was never his nickname -- it was a disparaging term, not a nickname.

Kay