Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Here we go again, ad nauseam andfor

Hi Paul,

At risk of going OT, I feel I have to say a word in defence of More. Like
Richard, he was a man of his time. His behaviour towards the "heretical"
William Tyndale seems inexcusable now, but More was a man of deeply felt
beliefs.

Also, out of the depths of my ignorance, I feel it is unlikely that More
wrote the History at Morton's dictation. In my view (derived from reading
and other people's postings on the net) the History was a humanist exercise,
like In Praise of Folly and Utopia. It is hard to tell to what degree it is
to be relied on as historical evidence at all. One editor says (I think)
that it is based on Sallust's life of the emperor...I think...Tiberius. It
also has relevance as an attack on tyranny, which may have found uneasy
cross-references to Henry VIII. I think More does use information that may
have been supplied to him by contemporaries of Richard, but he is always
undermining his "facts" by positing them as bedroom gossip (as in the
infamous "such as were secret with his chamberers") or general gossip "men
say".

I would not regard More as a saint, but it is too easy to attack him for
faults which belong to the context of his times. Tolerance was not seen as
a virtue then. For More, heresy imperilled men's immortal souls. This does
not justify his hounding of Tyndale in our eyes, but it may explain what
otherwise seems egregious.

I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a product of his
circumstances. The problem with the traditional or Tudor version (which
should surely be discredited by now) is that it describes him as a man
outside his time, and outside Nature - an exceptional abomination.

Jessica

----- Original Message -----
From: P.T.Bale <paultrevor@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Here we go again, ad nauseam
andforever...


> What you did miss out were the facts that the "sainted More" was a bigot,
> who beat his servants physically as well as financially, and hounded a man
> to his death for simply wanting to translate the Bible into English. Far
> from the "lovely" man of Man for All Seasons!

Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@...

> I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a product of his
> circumstances. The problem with the traditional or Tudor version (which
> should surely be discredited by now) is that it describes him as a man
> outside his time, and outside Nature - an exceptional abomination.
re your comments about More, I was simply putting forward a couple os
alternate ideas that have been mooted over the years re "his" Richard piece.
The paragraph above is on the nail.
The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth book is that he looks at
Richard;s career from an active rather than a reactive one, and puts him
firmly back into his age. This produces a very attractive man indeed. Worth
checking out all you doubters.
Paul

This ignores the fact that the age of the bones were similar to the
princes in 1483, the dental inspections which indicated a family link
and that most books & the Westminster Abbey authorities think they
probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid brother.

More stating that they were buried at the stair foot was a remarkable
coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (& therefore
unverifiable) from someone in the know.

Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all we've got even if you do
think it 'arrant nonsense.'


--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
>
> > I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a product of his
> > circumstances. The problem with the traditional or Tudor version
(which
> > should surely be discredited by now) is that it describes him as a
man
> > outside his time, and outside Nature - an exceptional abomination.
> re your comments about More, I was simply putting forward a couple
os
> alternate ideas that have been mooted over the years re "his"
Richard piece.
> The paragraph above is on the nail.
> The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth book is that he
looks at
> Richard;s career from an active rather than a reactive one, and puts
him
> firmly back into his age. This produces a very attractive man
indeed. Worth
> checking out all you doubters.
> Paul

Willison:

What set of bones has been dated?

I am particularly under the impression that no such
testing has been allowed on the bones that were found
at the foot of the stairs.

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> This ignores the fact that the age of the bones were
> similar to the
> princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> indicated a family link
> and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> authorities think they
> probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> brother.
>
> More stating that they were buried at the stair foot
> was a remarkable
> coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> therefore
> unverifiable) from someone in the know.
>
> Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all we've
> got even if you do
> think it 'arrant nonsense.'
>
>
> --- In ,
> "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> >
> > > I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a
> product of his
> > > circumstances. The problem with the traditional
> or Tudor version
> (which
> > > should surely be discredited by now) is that it
> describes him as a
> man
> > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> exceptional abomination.
> > re your comments about More, I was simply putting
> forward a couple
> os
> > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> years re "his"
> Richard piece.
> > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth
> book is that he
> looks at
> > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> reactive one, and puts
> him
> > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> attractive man
> indeed. Worth
> > checking out all you doubters.
> > Paul
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I didn'y say they've been carbon dated. They should be! But they
are the right ages and the teeth indicate a family connection, which
gives the impression that these are probably the princes. Velvet was
found around one set of remains, which didn't exist in England until
1400 & was worn by the upper class. This dates them as between 1400 &
1674 when found. Who else of the right ages, with a family
connection of the right class was imprisoned in the Tower &
could've been secretly concealed buried at a stair foot in a royal
passageway connecting the royal apatments to the chapel of St.
John?

As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this convincing
& think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't necessary.

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Willison:
>
> What set of bones has been dated?
>
> I am particularly under the impression that no such
> testing has been allowed on the bones that were found
> at the foot of the stairs.
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > This ignores the fact that the age of the bones were
> > similar to the
> > princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> > indicated a family link
> > and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> > authorities think they
> > probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> > brother.
> >
> > More stating that they were buried at the stair foot
> > was a remarkable
> > coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> > therefore
> > unverifiable) from someone in the know.
> >
> > Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all we've
> > got even if you do
> > think it 'arrant nonsense.'
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> > >
> > > > I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a
> > product of his
> > > > circumstances. The problem with the traditional
> > or Tudor version
> > (which
> > > > should surely be discredited by now) is that it
> > describes him as a
> > man
> > > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> > exceptional abomination.
> > > re your comments about More, I was simply putting
> > forward a couple
> > os
> > > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> > years re "his"
> > Richard piece.
> > > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > > The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth
> > book is that he
> > looks at
> > > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> > reactive one, and puts
> > him
> > > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> > attractive man
> > indeed. Worth
> > > checking out all you doubters.
> > > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I'm all for exhumation of royal remains to see what evidence there is
from carbon dating and cause of death. Edward V would be useful.
There's reason to believe that the remains of Richard III lie at
foundation level in the ruins of the Greyfriars, according to
correspondence I've had with Leicester authorities. And this site
will be excavated if & when buildings above become due for demolition.
I would like to see Richard, a brave man if not a saint, properly
buried.

However, I can sympathise with church authorties who don't want royal
tombs opened. This is expensive, not especially respectful and what
does it prove? If Edward V is affirmed as being in Westminster Abbey,
it doesn't prove who had him killed. Richard or Buckingham or some
local madman or disease? We are still left with circunstancial
evidence of motive, opportunity and track records of people.

Unfortunately, Richard III had motive: the removal of a potential
threat based on personal precedent, opportunity & a track record of
killing those who opposed him: Hastings, Edward V's half brother Grey.
There's quite a long list...


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I didn'y say they've been carbon dated. They should be! But they
> are the right ages and the teeth indicate a family connection, which
> gives the impression that these are probably the princes. Velvet
was
> found around one set of remains, which didn't exist in England until
> 1400 & was worn by the upper class. This dates them as between 1400
&
> 1674 when found. Who else of the right ages, with a family
> connection of the right class was imprisoned in the Tower &
> could've been secretly concealed buried at a stair foot in a royal
> passageway connecting the royal apatments to the chapel of St.
> John?
>
> As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this
convincing
> & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't necessary.
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > Willison:
> >
> > What set of bones has been dated?
> >
> > I am particularly under the impression that no such
> > testing has been allowed on the bones that were found
> > at the foot of the stairs.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > This ignores the fact that the age of the bones were
> > > similar to the
> > > princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> > > indicated a family link
> > > and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> > > authorities think they
> > > probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> > > brother.
> > >
> > > More stating that they were buried at the stair foot
> > > was a remarkable
> > > coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> > > therefore
> > > unverifiable) from someone in the know.
> > >
> > > Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all we've
> > > got even if you do
> > > think it 'arrant nonsense.'
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> > > "P.T.Bale"
> > > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> > > >
> > > > > I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a
> > > product of his
> > > > > circumstances. The problem with the traditional
> > > or Tudor version
> > > (which
> > > > > should surely be discredited by now) is that it
> > > describes him as a
> > > man
> > > > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> > > exceptional abomination.
> > > > re your comments about More, I was simply putting
> > > forward a couple
> > > os
> > > > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> > > years re "his"
> > > Richard piece.
> > > > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > > > The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth
> > > book is that he
> > > looks at
> > > > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> > > reactive one, and puts
> > > him
> > > > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> > > attractive man
> > > indeed. Worth
> > > > checking out all you doubters.
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I'm all for exhumation of royal remains to see what evidence there
is
> from carbon dating and cause of death. Edward V would be useful.
> There's reason to believe that the remains of Richard III lie at
> foundation level in the ruins of the Greyfriars, according to
> correspondence I've had with Leicester authorities. And this site
> will be excavated if & when buildings above become due for
demolition.
> I would like to see Richard, a brave man if not a saint, properly
> buried.
>
> However, I can sympathise with church authorties who don't want
royal
> tombs opened. This is expensive, not especially respectful and
what
> does it prove? If Edward V is affirmed as being in Westminster
Abbey,
> it doesn't prove who had him killed. Richard or Buckingham or some
> local madman or disease? We are still left with circunstancial
> evidence of motive, opportunity and track records of people.
>
> Unfortunately, Richard III had motive: the removal of a potential
> threat based on personal precedent, opportunity & a track record of
> killing those who opposed him: Hastings, Edward V's half brother
Grey.
> There's quite a long list...
>
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I didn'y say they've been carbon dated. They should be! But
they
> > are the right ages and the teeth indicate a family connection,
which
> > gives the impression that these are probably the princes. Velvet
> was
> > found around one set of remains, which didn't exist in England
until
> > 1400 & was worn by the upper class. This dates them as between
1400
> &
> > 1674 when found. Who else of the right ages, with a family
> > connection of the right class was imprisoned in the Tower &
> > could've been secretly concealed buried at a stair foot in a
royal
> > passageway connecting the royal apatments to the chapel of St.
> > John?
> >
> > As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this
> convincing
> > & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't necessary.
> >
> > --- In , Dora Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > Willison:
> > >
> > > What set of bones has been dated?
> > >
> > > I am particularly under the impression that no such
> > > testing has been allowed on the bones that were found
> > > at the foot of the stairs.
> > >
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > This ignores the fact that the age of the bones were
> > > > similar to the
> > > > princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> > > > indicated a family link
> > > > and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> > > > authorities think they
> > > > probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> > > > brother.
> > > >
> > > > More stating that they were buried at the stair foot
> > > > was a remarkable
> > > > coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> > > > therefore
> > > > unverifiable) from someone in the know.
> > > >
> > > > Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all we've
> > > > got even if you do
> > > > think it 'arrant nonsense.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
> > > > "P.T.Bale"
> > > > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > > > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think Richard too was a man of his time, and a
> > > > product of his
> > > > > > circumstances. The problem with the traditional
> > > > or Tudor version
> > > > (which
> > > > > > should surely be discredited by now) is that it
> > > > describes him as a
> > > > man
> > > > > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> > > > exceptional abomination.
> > > > > re your comments about More, I was simply putting
> > > > forward a couple
> > > > os
> > > > > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> > > > years re "his"
> > > > Richard piece.
> > > > > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > > > > The great thing about Michael Jones new Bosworth
> > > > book is that he
> > > > looks at
> > > > > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> > > > reactive one, and puts
> > > > him
> > > > > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> > > > attractive man
> > > > indeed. Worth
> > > > > checking out all you doubters.
> > > > > Paul
> > > >

I agree with this. Jones argues that the persistent rumours that
Edward IV was not the Duke of york's son were in fact true. I know a
lot of people find this very dubious, but it is simply a matter of
dates. Many many years ago, whilst researching for a novel I was
going to write on Richard & Cecily starting before they left for
France, I soon became aware that there is indeed a problem around
Edward's conception in that if he was born normal full term plus or
minus 3 weeks this would have him conceived while York was away on
the Pontoise campaign. Even worse, a book I read (no longer remember
the name) said that Cecily didn't even sail to France with York, but
followed on three weeks later (by which time he'd already left
Rouen). The surname Blayborgne, which the Duke of Burgundy gave as
that of Edward's real father, wasn't one he made up either. Blayburn
is a rare surname but a real one, and comes from the north of England
(the British 1881 census shows just one family with this name, in
Durham). York was on his Yorkshire estates before leaving for France
and undoubtedly took many northerners with him.

This knowledge shared by Richard and the Woodvilles (which for his
mother's sake Richard couldn't make official) puts all the events
following Edward's death in a new light, but makes much that didn't
appear to make sense before suddenly slot into place. Why were the
Woodvilles so keen to get Edward crowned before Gloucester could come
south? Why did Gloucester claim they were out to destroy him? How was
he able to oust Edward's son from the throne while still living in
his mother's house?

It also makes sense of Clarence's behaviour and death. Suddenly we
have not some sort of charming but 'unstable' twerp but his father's
true heir denied the throne that was rightfully his. I'm not saying
there aren't unstable people around, but every time I see a historian
use that description of someone my antennae go up - it usually means
they haven't put their finger on what was really going on.

Marie



> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I don't know of any way to age bones by looking at
them, and as far as I know that's about all that's
been done.

Dora



--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> I didn'y say they've been carbon dated. They should
> be! But they
> are the right ages and the teeth indicate a family
> connection, which
> gives the impression that these are probably the
> princes. Velvet was
> found around one set of remains, which didn't exist
> in England until
> 1400 & was worn by the upper class. This dates them
> as between 1400 &
> 1674 when found. Who else of the right ages, with a
> family
> connection of the right class was imprisoned in the
> Tower &
> could've been secretly concealed buried at a stair
> foot in a royal
> passageway connecting the royal apatments to the
> chapel of St.
> John?
>
> As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean
> find this convincing
> & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb,
> isn't necessary.
>
> --- In , Dora
> Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > Willison:
> >
> > What set of bones has been dated?
> >
> > I am particularly under the impression that no
> such
> > testing has been allowed on the bones that were
> found
> > at the foot of the stairs.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > This ignores the fact that the age of the bones
> were
> > > similar to the
> > > princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> > > indicated a family link
> > > and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> > > authorities think they
> > > probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> > > brother.
> > >
> > > More stating that they were buried at the stair
> foot
> > > was a remarkable
> > > coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> > > therefore
> > > unverifiable) from someone in the know.
> > >
> > > Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all
> we've
> > > got even if you do
> > > think it 'arrant nonsense.'
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> > > "P.T.Bale"
> > > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> > > >
> > > > > I think Richard too was a man of his time,
> and a
> > > product of his
> > > > > circumstances. The problem with the
> traditional
> > > or Tudor version
> > > (which
> > > > > should surely be discredited by now) is that
> it
> > > describes him as a
> > > man
> > > > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> > > exceptional abomination.
> > > > re your comments about More, I was simply
> putting
> > > forward a couple
> > > os
> > > > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> > > years re "his"
> > > Richard piece.
> > > > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > > > The great thing about Michael Jones new
> Bosworth
> > > book is that he
> > > looks at
> > > > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> > > reactive one, and puts
> > > him
> > > > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> > > attractive man
> > > indeed. Worth
> > > > checking out all you doubters.
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

That does sound kind of convincing. Can you give me
the full bibliographical information on this Jones
source?

It would not however have made a real difference.
Edward's father did not contest his legitimacy, he was
acknowledged as his son, and it was not contested in
Edward's lifetime. Only Clarence could have thought
it would make a difference at that point. Clarence
was seriously unstable and politically stupid.

Any idea who Edward's father would then have been? I
am working on tracing porphyria in the royal lines.
The severe inbreeding is one of the best arguments
that it was around from medieval times, not to mention
Stephen's periodic two month long life threatening
bouts of neurological illness. It is clear that HEnry
VII's children carried porphyria. But was Henry
necessarily the carrier?

Yours,
Dora


>
> I agree with this. Jones argues that the persistent
> rumours that
> Edward IV was not the Duke of york's son were in
> fact true. I know a
> lot of people find this very dubious, but it is
> simply a matter of
> dates. Many many years ago, whilst researching for a
> novel I was
> going to write on Richard & Cecily starting before
> they left for
> France, I soon became aware that there is indeed a
> problem around
> Edward's conception in that if he was born normal
> full term plus or
> minus 3 weeks this would have him conceived while
> York was away on
> the Pontoise campaign. Even worse, a book I read (no
> longer remember
> the name) said that Cecily didn't even sail to
> France with York, but
> followed on three weeks later (by which time he'd
> already left
> Rouen). The surname Blayborgne, which the Duke of
> Burgundy gave as
> that of Edward's real father, wasn't one he made up
> either. Blayburn
> is a rare surname but a real one, and comes from the
> north of England
> (the British 1881 census shows just one family with
> this name, in
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Well, it looks like Edward IV could be another candidate for
exhumation & DNA testing to check family links. We could end up with
the following being dug up: gay Edward 2, his 'son' Edward 3, Richard
Duke of York, Edward 4, Edward 5 & Richard his brother being checked
against Elizabeth of York. I'm sure the church authorties would be
annoyed, but the coroners delighted.

Seriously, it's difficult to prove that ANY women has been impregnated
by her husband. The chastity belt was a good idea from a man's
viewpoint, but I bet women didn't allow it very often.
>
> I agree with this. Jones argues that the persistent rumours that
> Edward IV was not the Duke of york's son were in fact true. I know a
> lot of people find this very dubious, but it is simply a matter of
> dates. Many many years ago, whilst researching for a novel I was
> going to write on Richard & Cecily starting before they left for
> France, I soon became aware that there is indeed a problem around
> Edward's conception in that if he was born normal full term plus or
> minus 3 weeks this would have him conceived while York was away on
> the Pontoise campaign. Even worse, a book I read (no longer remember
> the name) said that Cecily didn't even sail to France with York, but
> followed on three weeks later (by which time he'd already left
> Rouen). The surname Blayborgne, which the Duke of Burgundy gave as
> that of Edward's real father, wasn't one he made up either. Blayburn
> is a rare surname but a real one, and comes from the north of
England
> (the British 1881 census shows just one family with this name, in
> Durham). York was on his Yorkshire estates before leaving for France
> and undoubtedly took many northerners with him.
>
> This knowledge shared by Richard and the Woodvilles (which for his
> mother's sake Richard couldn't make official) puts all the events
> following Edward's death in a new light, but makes much that didn't
> appear to make sense before suddenly slot into place. Why were the
> Woodvilles so keen to get Edward crowned before Gloucester could
come
> south? Why did Gloucester claim they were out to destroy him? How
was
> he able to oust Edward's son from the throne while still living in
> his mother's house?
>
> It also makes sense of Clarence's behaviour and death. Suddenly we
> have not some sort of charming but 'unstable' twerp but his father's
> true heir denied the throne that was rightfully his. I'm not saying
> there aren't unstable people around, but every time I see a
historian
> use that description of someone my antennae go up - it usually means
> they haven't put their finger on what was really going on.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Tanner & Wright in 1933 checked them for dental development and
stages of growth elsewhere and the ages of the bones were held to
be very close to those of the princes in 1483. Subsequent,
specialists in dental development have checked the photos & agreed.

Carbon dating would affirm or disaffirm that the bones belong to
1483. The velvet found with them suggests the bones as between 1400
when it started to be imported to England & 1674 when they were
found. Velvet was worn exclusively by upper class individuals.

This evidence together with the fact that they were concealed in a
secret place in a royal passageway suggest a probability that they
belong to the princes. That's why they've remained in Westminster
Abbey since 1674.

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I don't know of any way to age bones by looking at
> them, and as far as I know that's about all that's
> been done.
>
> Dora
>
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I didn'y say they've been carbon dated. They should
> > be! But they
> > are the right ages and the teeth indicate a family
> > connection, which
> > gives the impression that these are probably the
> > princes. Velvet was
> > found around one set of remains, which didn't exist
> > in England until
> > 1400 & was worn by the upper class. This dates them
> > as between 1400 &
> > 1674 when found. Who else of the right ages, with a
> > family
> > connection of the right class was imprisoned in the
> > Tower &
> > could've been secretly concealed buried at a stair
> > foot in a royal
> > passageway connecting the royal apatments to the
> > chapel of St.
> > John?
> >
> > As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean
> > find this convincing
> > & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb,
> > isn't necessary.
> >
> > --- In , Dora
> > Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > Willison:
> > >
> > > What set of bones has been dated?
> > >
> > > I am particularly under the impression that no
> > such
> > > testing has been allowed on the bones that were
> > found
> > > at the foot of the stairs.
> > >
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > This ignores the fact that the age of the bones
> > were
> > > > similar to the
> > > > princes in 1483, the dental inspections which
> > > > indicated a family link
> > > > and that most books & the Westminster Abbey
> > > > authorities think they
> > > > probably ARE the bones of Edward V & his kid
> > > > brother.
> > > >
> > > > More stating that they were buried at the stair
> > foot
> > > > was a remarkable
> > > > coincidence, which he may've heard indirectly (&
> > > > therefore
> > > > unverifiable) from someone in the know.
> > > >
> > > > Conjecture fronm fragmentary evidence is all
> > we've
> > > > got even if you do
> > > > think it 'arrant nonsense.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
> > > > "P.T.Bale"
> > > > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > > > Jessica Rydill26/02/2003 20:46la@l...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think Richard too was a man of his time,
> > and a
> > > > product of his
> > > > > > circumstances. The problem with the
> > traditional
> > > > or Tudor version
> > > > (which
> > > > > > should surely be discredited by now) is that
> > it
> > > > describes him as a
> > > > man
> > > > > > outside his time, and outside Nature - an
> > > > exceptional abomination.
> > > > > re your comments about More, I was simply
> > putting
> > > > forward a couple
> > > > os
> > > > > alternate ideas that have been mooted over the
> > > > years re "his"
> > > > Richard piece.
> > > > > The paragraph above is on the nail.
> > > > > The great thing about Michael Jones new
> > Bosworth
> > > > book is that he
> > > > looks at
> > > > > Richard;s career from an active rather than a
> > > > reactive one, and puts
> > > > him
> > > > > firmly back into his age. This produces a very
> > > > attractive man
> > > > indeed. Worth
> > > > > checking out all you doubters.
> > > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

The principal remains in most question - Edward IV, Elizabeth Wydeville,
Elizabeth of York, and the contents of the urn are all situated in "Royal
Peculiars" consent would depend on the advice of the dean and chapter given
to the Sovereign and I suspect on both counts the Dean of Westminster and
the Dean of Windsor would suggest that the exercise was pointless.

Also to get a decent match would depend on the state of the bodies - we all
know that the remains in the Urn are not likely to be in good shape
therefore a sample of DNA is unlikely. Also the tomb of Edward IV and his
wife was opened in the 18th Century and whilst Edward was buried in a lead
coffin his wife wasn't - and the Hanoverians were notorious for their
penchant for curiosities if there is anything much left of Elizabeth
Wydeville's remains then it will be a miracle. Elizabeth of York is a
stronger candidate for a match as her tomb is pretty much as it was when she
was put in it and a sample of DNA may well be possible.

Whilst people have suggested that a sample of Edward's hair is said to be
held somewhere or other the problem to prove its his depends on a chain of
evidence which may be difficult.

I am no great expert on Genetics but would hazard a guess that proving that
Edward IV wasn't a Plantagenet would be downright impossible given that
through his mother (who I assume that we don't disagree was Cecily Neville)
he was descended from Edward III (John of Gaunt - Joan Beaufort - Cecily
Neville) in any case. As to his children well Elizabeth Wdyeville through
her mother had at least two Plantagenet descents. If you managed say to get
DNA from Edward IV or Elizabeth of York and linked them to say the remains
of Edward III or Henry III or Edward I then it wouldn't prove anything that
you didn't expect. The only way to prove it one way or the other would be a
direct comparison between Richard Duke of York and Edward IV which I suspect
would be impossible (as I doubt there is much of Richard Duke of York left).

Incidentally its all irrelevant since to my understanding English Law is
quite clear (and this is one thing that legal experts may confirm or
disprove) and that is that a child born to a married woman is legally the
child of her husband. And do any of us really suggest that George of
Clarence would have been a better King than Edward IV.

Tim


----- Original Message -----
From: <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Exhumation


> Well, it looks like Edward IV could be another candidate for
> exhumation & DNA testing to check family links. We could end up with
> the following being dug up: gay Edward 2, his 'son' Edward 3, Richard
> Duke of York, Edward 4, Edward 5 & Richard his brother being checked
> against Elizabeth of York. I'm sure the church authorties would be
> annoyed, but the coroners delighted.
>
> Seriously, it's difficult to prove that ANY women has been impregnated
> by her husband. The chastity belt was a good idea from a man's
> viewpoint, but I bet women didn't allow it very often.
> >
> > I agree with this. Jones argues that the persistent rumours that
> > Edward IV was not the Duke of york's son were in fact true. I know a
> > lot of people find this very dubious, but it is simply a matter of
> > dates. Many many years ago, whilst researching for a novel I was
> > going to write on Richard & Cecily starting before they left for
> > France, I soon became aware that there is indeed a problem around
> > Edward's conception in that if he was born normal full term plus or
> > minus 3 weeks this would have him conceived while York was away on
> > the Pontoise campaign. Even worse, a book I read (no longer remember
> > the name) said that Cecily didn't even sail to France with York, but
> > followed on three weeks later (by which time he'd already left
> > Rouen). The surname Blayborgne, which the Duke of Burgundy gave as
> > that of Edward's real father, wasn't one he made up either. Blayburn
> > is a rare surname but a real one, and comes from the north of
> England
> > (the British 1881 census shows just one family with this name, in
> > Durham). York was on his Yorkshire estates before leaving for France
> > and undoubtedly took many northerners with him.
> >
> > This knowledge shared by Richard and the Woodvilles (which for his
> > mother's sake Richard couldn't make official) puts all the events
> > following Edward's death in a new light, but makes much that didn't
> > appear to make sense before suddenly slot into place. Why were the
> > Woodvilles so keen to get Edward crowned before Gloucester could
> come
> > south? Why did Gloucester claim they were out to destroy him? How
> was
> > he able to oust Edward's son from the throne while still living in
> > his mother's house?
> >
> > It also makes sense of Clarence's behaviour and death. Suddenly we
> > have not some sort of charming but 'unstable' twerp but his father's
> > true heir denied the throne that was rightfully his. I'm not saying
> > there aren't unstable people around, but every time I see a
> historian
> > use that description of someone my antennae go up - it usually means
> > they haven't put their finger on what was really going on.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

<The chastity belt was a good idea from a man's
viewpoint, but I bet women didn't allow it very often.>

Yep, out of all the men who post to the various
discussion lists I'm on, you *would* be the one to
write that the chastity belt was a good idea from a
man's viewpoint.

We certainly get our moneys worth out of you...!

Lorraine

Tim

You are quite correct that a child born to a married woman is
presumed to have been fathered by her husband, but that presumption
is rebuttable by evidence, and there have been plenty of cases where
the evidence has been accepted.

That said, I am dubious about Jones's theory, not least because he is
relying on a very narrow time band. 2-3 weeks is surely neither here
nor there when it comes to conceptions. My parents married on 20th
March 1959. I was born on 27th November 1959. My mother swears that
nothing happened before the wedding night, and I have no reason to
disbelieve her. I was a bit on the small side (barely 6lb) but
otherwise an entirely healthy infant.

Is it not entirely possible that the Duke of York came home after a
successful campaign, he and his Duchess celebrated in bed, and the
result was a slightly premature but otherwise healthy Edward IV?

Ann


--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> The principal remains in most question - Edward IV, Elizabeth
Wydeville,
> Elizabeth of York, and the contents of the urn are all situated
in "Royal
> Peculiars" consent would depend on the advice of the dean and
chapter given
> to the Sovereign and I suspect on both counts the Dean of
Westminster and
> the Dean of Windsor would suggest that the exercise was pointless.
>
> Also to get a decent match would depend on the state of the bodies -
we all
> know that the remains in the Urn are not likely to be in good shape
> therefore a sample of DNA is unlikely. Also the tomb of Edward IV
and his
> wife was opened in the 18th Century and whilst Edward was buried in
a lead
> coffin his wife wasn't - and the Hanoverians were notorious for
their
> penchant for curiosities if there is anything much left of Elizabeth
> Wydeville's remains then it will be a miracle. Elizabeth of York
is a
> stronger candidate for a match as her tomb is pretty much as it was
when she
> was put in it and a sample of DNA may well be possible.
>
> Whilst people have suggested that a sample of Edward's hair is said
to be
> held somewhere or other the problem to prove its his depends on a
chain of
> evidence which may be difficult.
>
> I am no great expert on Genetics but would hazard a guess that
proving that
> Edward IV wasn't a Plantagenet would be downright impossible given
that
> through his mother (who I assume that we don't disagree was Cecily
Neville)
> he was descended from Edward III (John of Gaunt - Joan Beaufort -
Cecily
> Neville) in any case. As to his children well Elizabeth Wdyeville
through
> her mother had at least two Plantagenet descents. If you managed
say to get
> DNA from Edward IV or Elizabeth of York and linked them to say the
remains
> of Edward III or Henry III or Edward I then it wouldn't prove
anything that
> you didn't expect. The only way to prove it one way or the other
would be a
> direct comparison between Richard Duke of York and Edward IV which
I suspect
> would be impossible (as I doubt there is much of Richard Duke of
York left).
>
> Incidentally its all irrelevant since to my understanding English
Law is
> quite clear (and this is one thing that legal experts may confirm or
> disprove) and that is that a child born to a married woman is
legally the
> child of her husband. And do any of us really suggest that George
of
> Clarence would have been a better King than Edward IV.
>
> Tim
>
> > >

This is consistent with what I understand. But no
dating done directly on the princes or their material.

Hey, I have a question. Not first such mystery I've
encountered.

I gather they are BONES, no flesh found on them - but
there was velvet? How is this possible?

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Tanner & Wright in 1933 checked them for dental
> development and
> stages of growth elsewhere and the ages of the bones
> were held to
> be very close to those of the princes in 1483.
> Subsequent,
> specialists in dental development have checked the
> photos & agreed.
>
> Carbon dating would affirm or disaffirm that the
> bones belong to
> 1483. The velvet found with them suggests the bones
> as between 1400
> when it started to be imported to England & 1674
> when they were
> found. Velvet was worn exclusively by upper class
> individuals.
>
> This evidence together with the fact that they were
> concealed in a
> secret place in a royal passageway suggest a
> probability that they
> belong to the princes. That's why they've remained
> in Westminster
> Abbey since 1674.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

That case would have had to be brought by Edward's
father, and it never was.

What's that bibliographic reference on "Jones",
anyway?

Dora

--- aelyon2001 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim
>
> You are quite correct that a child born to a married
> woman is
> presumed to have been fathered by her husband, but
> that presumption
> is rebuttable by evidence, and there have been
> plenty of cases where
> the evidence has been accepted.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Bones! I've a complete copy of the 1933 Tanner & Wright report
with photographs of the bones! Velvet can survive, depends upon
the conditions of burial.

Flesh on dinosaurs has even been found & the large variety, as opposed
to the small variety (birds) which still exist, were wiped out about
65 million years ago! As I say, it depends upon the conditions. If
the coffin is sealed well, dry & insects have not burrowed in &
there's been no land disturbance, then, the remains may be fairly
intact. However, DNA does deteriorate with age, so DNA comparison of
say Edward 5 & his sister Elizabeth isn't as easy as some people
think, not after over 500 years!

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> This is consistent with what I understand. But no
> dating done directly on the princes or their material.
>
> Hey, I have a question. Not first such mystery I've
> encountered.
>
> I gather they are BONES, no flesh found on them - but
> there was velvet? How is this possible?
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Tanner & Wright in 1933 checked them for dental
> > development and
> > stages of growth elsewhere and the ages of the bones
> > were held to
> > be very close to those of the princes in 1483.
> > Subsequent,
> > specialists in dental development have checked the
> > photos & agreed.
> >
> > Carbon dating would affirm or disaffirm that the
> > bones belong to
> > 1483. The velvet found with them suggests the bones
> > as between 1400
> > when it started to be imported to England & 1674
> > when they were
> > found. Velvet was worn exclusively by upper class
> > individuals.
> >
> > This evidence together with the fact that they were
> > concealed in a
> > secret place in a royal passageway suggest a
> > probability that they
> > belong to the princes. That's why they've remained
> > in Westminster
> > Abbey since 1674.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Legally speaking, a case of this kind, i.e. seeking to prove that the
Duke of York had not fathered Edward IV, could have been brought by
other people besides the Duke himself, most obviously the person who
would be the Duke's heir if Edward were a bastard - before the end of
1460 that would have been Edmund, the next brother, and thereafter
Clarence.

In any event, no one seems to have mentioned the obvious point. If
there was reason to doubt Edward's paternity, the Duke of York would
have known it, and would he tolerate someone else's bastard as his
heir, the more so when barely a year later there was another son
whose paternity was not in doubt? I think not.

Ann


--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> That case would have had to be brought by Edward's
> father, and it never was.
>
> What's that bibliographic reference on "Jones",
> anyway?
>
> Dora
>
> --- aelyon2001 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Tim
> >
> > You are quite correct that a child born to a married
> > woman is
> > presumed to have been fathered by her husband, but
> > that presumption
> > is rebuttable by evidence, and there have been
> > plenty of cases where
> > the evidence has been accepted.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I'm afraid my copy of the book is buried at the moment due to
decorating, but I'll give you the details as soon as it emerges.

It's true that York recognised Edward as his own son, and a decision
had been taken in that respect. But Edward was generally believed to
be illegitimate in France and Burgundy, and was often derided by
Louis XI as ' le fils d'archier' - the archer's son - which can't
have been helpful to his position internationally. Amongst his family
it must always have been there under the surface. It's often been
commented how York took Edmund to Ireland with him after Ludlow,
where Edward fled with Warwick to Calais; when he came back Edward
apparently joined Warwick in quarrelling with his father over
claiming the throne; it was Edmund was with his father at
Wakefield.... Perhaps one reason York was so slow to actually claim
the throne was because he had doubts about the legitimacy of the
dynasty he would be founding.

Certainly it must have been a guilty secret for Cecily. I think it
was Vergil who claims she told Edward about his true paternity in a
blazing row after he had announced his marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville, and threatened to declare him a bastard to the Council.
Jones suggests she initially supported Clarence & Warwick's
rebellion. Edward had been crowned and anointed, and there was no
going back on that, but given all that had happened, would the family
let Blayburn's line reign for another generation? particularly if it
meant a child king controlled by the Woodville outsiders. Perhaps
this is why, when Cecily's body was exhumed, she was found to be
wearing round her neck a pardon from Rome.

And there would have been English aristocratic families with the
Yorks in France who could also count on their fingers - the Oxfords
are a case in point, supporters of the Duke of York during his
lifetime as far as I recall, they became Lancastrian sympathisers
during Edward's reign. Interesting...

According to continental sources, Edward's real father was an English
archer named 'Blayborgne'. The name doesn't appear in the Duke of
York's surviving household accounts, so he wasn't anybody prominent
in his service. Probably just what was claimed, a tall handsome
archer.

It is worth remembering that Cecily had given birth to a son, Henry,
(their second child) four or five months before they sailed to Rouen.
Though Henry did not survive early childhood, he was probably still
alive when Edward was conceived. So Cecily would not have seen
herself as taking such a risk with the family succession as at first
appears. Nor was she probably aware how fertile she was to become.
Although she was to go on to have twelve children altogether, the
first years of the marriage had not been particularly fruitful.
As 'William Worcester's' verse has it:

"Sir, after the tme of long barrenness,
God first sent Anne, which signifieth Grace;
In token that all their heart's heaviness
He as for barrenness would fro them chase.
Harry, Edward and Edmund, each in his place
Succeeded..."
Richard and Cecily were married as children, and no doubt bedded in
their mid teens. Yet Cecily was 23 before Anne came along, and did
not conceive again for nine months after her birth.

For a short fling while her husband was away on campaign to prove so
disastrous, three things had to happen;
1. Cecily had to fall pregnant pretty well straight away (a chance
she would have rated no higher than 1/9)
2. The baby had to be a boy (1/2), and
3. Little Henry had to die (perhaps 1/4).

She could well have thought the risk (1/9 x 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/72) worth
taking.
Rotten bad luck.

I know it has been surmised that the mad Charles VI of France had
porphyria, and that it passed to both Henry VI and the Tudors through
his daughter Katherine de Valois. An article I read some years ago in
the Society library stated that the condition is also associated with
a thin skull, and that perhaps Henry VI really did die of natural
causes, fainting at the news of his son's death and hitting his
head.... I don't know whether Henry's skull WAS particuarly frail.
Anyone else?

Marie







--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
>
> That does sound kind of convincing. Can you give me
> the full bibliographical information on this Jones
> source?
>
> It would not however have made a real difference.
> Edward's father did not contest his legitimacy, he was
> acknowledged as his son, and it was not contested in
> Edward's lifetime. Only Clarence could have thought
> it would make a difference at that point. Clarence
> was seriously unstable and politically stupid.
>
> Any idea who Edward's father would then have been? I
> am working on tracing porphyria in the royal lines.
> The severe inbreeding is one of the best arguments
> that it was around from medieval times, not to mention
> Stephen's periodic two month long life threatening
> bouts of neurological illness. It is clear that HEnry
> VII's children carried porphyria. But was Henry
> necessarily the carrier?
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
>
> >
> > I agree with this. Jones argues that the persistent
> > rumours that
> > Edward IV was not the Duke of york's son were in
> > fact true. I know a
> > lot of people find this very dubious, but it is
> > simply a matter of
> > dates. Many many years ago, whilst researching for a
> > novel I was
> > going to write on Richard & Cecily starting before
> > they left for
> > France, I soon became aware that there is indeed a
> > problem around
> > Edward's conception in that if he was born normal
> > full term plus or
> > minus 3 weeks this would have him conceived while
> > York was away on
> > the Pontoise campaign. Even worse, a book I read (no
> > longer remember
> > the name) said that Cecily didn't even sail to
> > France with York, but
> > followed on three weeks later (by which time he'd
> > already left
> > Rouen). The surname Blayborgne, which the Duke of
> > Burgundy gave as
> > that of Edward's real father, wasn't one he made up
> > either. Blayburn
> > is a rare surname but a real one, and comes from the
> > north of England
> > (the British 1881 census shows just one family with
> > this name, in
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Hi Marie

<Perhaps his is why, when Cecily's body was exhumed, she was found to
be wearing round her neck a pardon from Rome.>

IMHO she really ought to have been wearing that pardon for leaving
Margaret Beaufort stuff in her will! :(

<I don't know whether Henry's skull WAS particuarly frail.>

I remember posting details on this on another list. I believe it was
stated in the exhumation report of H6 that the skull was on the thin
side...>

Lorraine

In a message dated 3/3/03 3:10:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:


> I don't know whether Henry's skull WAS particuarly frail.
> Anyone else?
>
>

His body was exhumed right? I remember reading that his skull did have some
cracks or some problem with it. They should x-ray it. King Tutankhamun's
skull was x-rayed and it led some egyptologists to provide new theories into
his death (sorry, ancient egypt is my other area of interest lol)
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Marie

I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you here. The problem
is that it is perfectly possible to stack up the known facts in
favour of two diametrically opposed conclusions. I will give my
responses as follows:-
1) The remarks about Edward IV as 'le fils d'archier' may well
represent nothing more than Louis XI taking up vague gossip with
enthusiasm and enjoying the joke: 'That Edward IV, swanking about
with his fancy palaces and splendid clothes, yet he's just the son of
an archer,' rather as I nowadays enjoy saying of the Lord
Chancellor, 'That Irvine with his £300 wallpaper, yet he's just the
son of a roofing contractor' (with the difference that the latter
happens to be true).
2) Perhaps the Duke of York took Edmund with him to Ireland rather
than Edward because Edward was that bit older and capable of acting
on his own account. It would also be entirely sensible for York to
have someone he could rely on with Salisbury and Warwick. There was
almost exactly a year between Edward and Edmund, and a year can make
a very big difference when one is 17 and the other 16. By the time of
Wakefield, Edward had demonstratd his ability to act independently,
but Edmund was still undr his father's tutelage. It would also make
sense in those dangerous times for York to keep his heir physically
apart from him, in much the same way that the Queen and Prince of
Wales nowadays avoid travelling in the same aircraft (there was
concern recently about the Prince of Wales and his sons travelling in
the same aircraft).
3) I will have to look closely at my copy of Jones, but I'm not aware
of anything much to suggest that Cecily initially supported Clarence
and Warwick in 1469-70. How reliable is Vergil's account (written
many years after the event)? I don't think we can infer much from the
pardon from Rome without knowing the text, certainly not a specific
sin - she was a very religious woman.
4) To assume that as Cecily already had a son (Henry) of
unquestionable legitimacy at the time of Edward's conception she
would think that a bastard wouldn't matter is to ignore the very high
rate of childhood mortality in the 15th century and for long
afterwards. Not only was it necessary to have an heir and a spare, in
those days you needed an heir and several spares.

Ann

--- In , "mariewalsh2003
<marie@r...>" <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid my copy of the book is buried at the moment due to
> decorating, but I'll give you the details as soon as it emerges.
>
> It's true that York recognised Edward as his own son, and a
decision
> had been taken in that respect. But Edward was generally believed
to
> be illegitimate in France and Burgundy, and was often derided by
> Louis XI as ' le fils d'archier' - the archer's son - which can't
> have been helpful to his position internationally. Amongst his
family
> it must always have been there under the surface. It's often been
> commented how York took Edmund to Ireland with him after Ludlow,
> where Edward fled with Warwick to Calais; when he came back Edward
> apparently joined Warwick in quarrelling with his father over
> claiming the throne; it was Edmund was with his father at
> Wakefield.... Perhaps one reason York was so slow to actually claim
> the throne was because he had doubts about the legitimacy of the
> dynasty he would be founding.
>
> Certainly it must have been a guilty secret for Cecily. I think it
> was Vergil who claims she told Edward about his true paternity in a
> blazing row after he had announced his marriage to Elizabeth
> Woodville, and threatened to declare him a bastard to the Council.
> Jones suggests she initially supported Clarence & Warwick's
> rebellion. Edward had been crowned and anointed, and there was no
> going back on that, but given all that had happened, would the
family
> let Blayburn's line reign for another generation? particularly if
it
> meant a child king controlled by the Woodville outsiders. Perhaps
> this is why, when Cecily's body was exhumed, she was found to be
> wearing round her neck a pardon from Rome.
>
> And there would have been English aristocratic families with the
> Yorks in France who could also count on their fingers - the Oxfords
> are a case in point, supporters of the Duke of York during his
> lifetime as far as I recall, they became Lancastrian sympathisers
> during Edward's reign. Interesting...
>
> According to continental sources, Edward's real father was an
English
> archer named 'Blayborgne'. The name doesn't appear in the Duke of
> York's surviving household accounts, so he wasn't anybody prominent
> in his service. Probably just what was claimed, a tall handsome
> archer.
>
> It is worth remembering that Cecily had given birth to a son, Henry,
> (their second child) four or five months before they sailed to
Rouen.
> Though Henry did not survive early childhood, he was probably still
> alive when Edward was conceived. So Cecily would not have seen
> herself as taking such a risk with the family succession as at
first
> appears. Nor was she probably aware how fertile she was to become.
> Although she was to go on to have twelve children altogether, the
> first years of the marriage had not been particularly fruitful.
> As 'William Worcester's' verse has it:
>
> "Sir, after the tme of long barrenness,
> God first sent Anne, which signifieth Grace;
> In token that all their heart's heaviness
> He as for barrenness would fro them chase.
> Harry, Edward and Edmund, each in his place
> Succeeded..."
> Richard and Cecily were married as children, and no doubt bedded in
> their mid teens. Yet Cecily was 23 before Anne came along, and did
> not conceive again for nine months after her birth.
>
> For a short fling while her husband was away on campaign to prove
so
> disastrous, three things had to happen;
> 1. Cecily had to fall pregnant pretty well straight away (a chance
> she would have rated no higher than 1/9)
> 2. The baby had to be a boy (1/2), and
> 3. Little Henry had to die (perhaps 1/4).
>
> She could well have thought the risk (1/9 x 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/72) worth
> taking.
> Rotten bad luck.
>
> I know it has been surmised that the mad Charles VI of France had
> porphyria, and that it passed to both Henry VI and the Tudors
through
> his daughter Katherine de Valois. An article I read some years ago
in
> the Society library stated that the condition is also associated
with
> a thin skull, and that perhaps Henry VI really did die of natural
> causes, fainting at the news of his son's death and hitting his
> head.... I don't know whether Henry's skull WAS particuarly frail.
> Anyone else?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

<As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this
convincing & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't
necessary.>

You should perhaps get an update on this.

As I did quite recently.

When I found out that the current official line is that they are
considering updating their guide literature to include a broader
interpretation of events, or at least emphasise that the inscription
of the Urn dates from the 17thC.

I was also told that the main objection to the bones being disturbed
for tests is not so much that it is a royal tomb, but that it is a
tomb, full stop. One where the contents have been examined before.
Not only that, but it happens to be a tomb that's in a Royal Peculiar
that bring with it its own procedures that the present Dean is
reluctant to pursue with the present Monarch.

And on the contrary, in my experience, 'most' historians *I* know and
read are at least as ambivalent about the Urn and its contents as I
am.

A sidebar really: Some time ago, I was asked by someone setting up
an online petition to check on the wording on the Urn. When I did
so, I'd forgotten just how much detail there was on the wretched
thing and so subseqently suggested they may consider asking for an
additional plaque to be placed nearby, pointing out that many now
believe Richard did not murder his nephews, whose bones may or may
not be those in the Urn.

I later found out that the R3 Soc. had donated such a plaque donkey's
years ago, which has since disappeared. The Abbey's present stance
on signage means that it is unlikely to restore the Society's
original plaque - should they ever find it (though why they didn't
offer to return this property bought by subscription when they
unscrewed it from it's place at the Urn is beyond me as the Society
is contactable with very little effort). Nor is it likely to agree
to a new plaque being displayed.

I thought an additional plaque could be a good compromise until new
incumbents to Crown & see can agree to an examination, but will have
to remain disappointed on all fronts.

Luckily I'm an optimist <g>.

Lorraine

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you here. The
problem
> is that it is perfectly possible to stack up the known facts in
> favour of two diametrically opposed conclusions. I will give my
> responses as follows:-
> 1) The remarks about Edward IV as 'le fils d'archier' may well
> represent nothing more than Louis XI taking up vague gossip with
> enthusiasm and enjoying the joke: 'That Edward IV, swanking about
> with his fancy palaces and splendid clothes, yet he's just the son
of
> an archer,' rather as I nowadays enjoy saying of the Lord
> Chancellor, 'That Irvine with his £300 wallpaper, yet he's just the
> son of a roofing contractor' (with the difference that the latter
> happens to be true).

I was responding to query as to who those who claimed Edward to be
illegitmate believed his true father to be. The rumours were
persistent and consistent, and reported by both the King of France
and the Duke of Burgundy. .

But as I said at the outset, and as argued in Michael Jones' book the
case does not rest on rumour. When this was all historians thought
they had to go on, they all dismissed it. It is unprovable without
DNA but does rest on facts - on dates, on examination of York's
movements at the critical time. In a nutshell, FOR EDWARD TO HAVE
BEEN YORK'S SON HE MUST HAVE BEEN BORN PREMATURELY, which given his
robust physique and health as an adult seems unlikely.
Marie

> 2) Perhaps the Duke of York took Edmund with him to Ireland rather
> than Edward because Edward was that bit older and capable of acting
> on his own account. It would also be entirely sensible for York to
> have someone he could rely on with Salisbury and Warwick. There was
> almost exactly a year between Edward and Edmund, and a year can
make
> a very big difference when one is 17 and the other 16. By the time
of
> Wakefield, Edward had demonstratd his ability to act independently,
> but Edmund was still undr his father's tutelage. It would also make
> sense in those dangerous times for York to keep his heir physically
> apart from him, in much the same way that the Queen and Prince of
> Wales nowadays avoid travelling in the same aircraft (there was
> concern recently about the Prince of Wales and his sons travelling
in
> the same aircraft).

Ann, I completely agree with you that the events I cited are capable
of two completely different interpretations, but they do at least fit
the theory of Edward's bastardy. If York and Edward had been
inseparably close it would be different

Marie

> 3) I will have to look closely at my copy of Jones, but I'm not
aware
> of anything much to suggest that Cecily initially supported
Clarence
> and Warwick in 1469-70.

I am talking about the right book, am I, Ann? As I said, it's buried
at pres. The one I am thinking about cited Cecily's visit to Sandwich
to meet Warwick & Clarence.
Marie

How reliable is Vergil's account (written > many years after the
event)?
Not very, probably, but I go back to my point about the actual events
of 1440. That's what you need to be dealing with.

I don't think we can infer much from the
> pardon from Rome without knowing the text, certainly not a specific
> sin - she was a very religious woman.
> 4) To assume that as Cecily already had a son (Henry) of
> unquestionable legitimacy at the time of Edward's conception she
> would think that a bastard wouldn't matter is to ignore the very
high
> rate of childhood mortality in the 15th century and for long
> afterwards. Not only was it necessary to have an heir and a spare,
in
> those days you needed an heir and several spares.
>
> Ann
>

No Ann, if you read my message properly you will see that I didn't
ignore the very high rate of infant mortality at all. I actually
suggested Cecily might have thought the chances of losing Henry about
one in four. I have made extensive study of the families of the
nobility in this period, and I would think this is fair - although as
we know, Cecily was to lose 5 out of 12 of her children, but she
didn't know that at this time. In the summer of 1440 she had borne
two children and both were still alive. As I suggested, factored in
with the other risks, such as getting pregnant in a single month, and
then giving birth to a male child, the risk of presenting her husband
with a false male heir probably seemed pretty small (as I suggested,
one could work it out mathematically at about 1/72, though I'm sure
Cecily wouldn't have done this - or known how to). Actually, if any
child was to die in infancy it was as likely to have been Edward as
Henry. Also, of course, Cecily could have had no idea at that time
that her husband would one day claim the throne.


> --- In , "mariewalsh2003
> <marie@r...>" <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid my copy of the book is buried at the moment due to
> > decorating, but I'll give you the details as soon as it emerges.
> >
> > It's true that York recognised Edward as his own son, and a
> decision
> > had been taken in that respect. But Edward was generally believed
> to
> > be illegitimate in France and Burgundy, and was often derided by
> > Louis XI as ' le fils d'archier' - the archer's son - which can't
> > have been helpful to his position internationally. Amongst his
> family
> > it must always have been there under the surface. It's often been
> > commented how York took Edmund to Ireland with him after Ludlow,
> > where Edward fled with Warwick to Calais; when he came back
Edward
> > apparently joined Warwick in quarrelling with his father over
> > claiming the throne; it was Edmund was with his father at
> > Wakefield.... Perhaps one reason York was so slow to actually
claim
> > the throne was because he had doubts about the legitimacy of the
> > dynasty he would be founding.
> >
> > Certainly it must have been a guilty secret for Cecily. I think
it
> > was Vergil who claims she told Edward about his true paternity in
a
> > blazing row after he had announced his marriage to Elizabeth
> > Woodville, and threatened to declare him a bastard to the
Council.
> > Jones suggests she initially supported Clarence & Warwick's
> > rebellion. Edward had been crowned and anointed, and there was no
> > going back on that, but given all that had happened, would the
> family
> > let Blayburn's line reign for another generation? particularly if
> it
> > meant a child king controlled by the Woodville outsiders. Perhaps
> > this is why, when Cecily's body was exhumed, she was found to be
> > wearing round her neck a pardon from Rome.
> >
> > And there would have been English aristocratic families with the
> > Yorks in France who could also count on their fingers - the
Oxfords
> > are a case in point, supporters of the Duke of York during his
> > lifetime as far as I recall, they became Lancastrian sympathisers
> > during Edward's reign. Interesting...
> >
> > According to continental sources, Edward's real father was an
> English
> > archer named 'Blayborgne'. The name doesn't appear in the Duke of
> > York's surviving household accounts, so he wasn't anybody
prominent
> > in his service. Probably just what was claimed, a tall handsome
> > archer.
> >
> > It is worth remembering that Cecily had given birth to a son,
Henry,
> > (their second child) four or five months before they sailed to
> Rouen.
> > Though Henry did not survive early childhood, he was probably
still
> > alive when Edward was conceived. So Cecily would not have seen
> > herself as taking such a risk with the family succession as at
> first
> > appears. Nor was she probably aware how fertile she was to
become.
> > Although she was to go on to have twelve children altogether, the
> > first years of the marriage had not been particularly fruitful.
> > As 'William Worcester's' verse has it:
> >
> > "Sir, after the tme of long barrenness,
> > God first sent Anne, which signifieth Grace;
> > In token that all their heart's heaviness
> > He as for barrenness would fro them chase.
> > Harry, Edward and Edmund, each in his place
> > Succeeded..."
> > Richard and Cecily were married as children, and no doubt bedded
in
> > their mid teens. Yet Cecily was 23 before Anne came along, and
did
> > not conceive again for nine months after her birth.
> >
> > For a short fling while her husband was away on campaign to prove
> so
> > disastrous, three things had to happen;
> > 1. Cecily had to fall pregnant pretty well straight away (a
chance
> > she would have rated no higher than 1/9)
> > 2. The baby had to be a boy (1/2), and
> > 3. Little Henry had to die (perhaps 1/4).
> >
> > She could well have thought the risk (1/9 x 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/72)
worth
> > taking.
> > Rotten bad luck.
> >
> > I know it has been surmised that the mad Charles VI of France had
> > porphyria, and that it passed to both Henry VI and the Tudors
> through
> > his daughter Katherine de Valois. An article I read some years
ago
> in
> > the Society library stated that the condition is also associated
> with
> > a thin skull, and that perhaps Henry VI really did die of natural
> > causes, fainting at the news of his son's death and hitting his
> > head.... I don't know whether Henry's skull WAS particuarly
frail.
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Legally speaking, a case of this kind, i.e. seeking to prove that
the
> Duke of York had not fathered Edward IV, could have been brought by
> other people besides the Duke himself, most obviously the person
who
> would be the Duke's heir if Edward were a bastard - before the end
of
> 1460 that would have been Edmund, the next brother, and thereafter
> Clarence.
>
> In any event, no one seems to have mentioned the obvious point. If
> there was reason to doubt Edward's paternity, the Duke of York
would
> have known it, and would he tolerate someone else's bastard as his
> heir, the more so when barely a year later there was another son
> whose paternity was not in doubt? I think not.
>
> Ann

Well, a man might well have chosen to refute the child, but there are
several reasons why he might not:

1. He was a very decent bloke, the Duke of York, and whatever the
difficulties might have been in their early marriage, he and Cecily
later became inseparable.

2. He had initially recognised Edward as his own, when Henry was
probably still alive, albeit giving him a very low-key christening.

3. He could not be absolutely sure the child wasn't his, even if he
knew for certain that Cecily had had an affair. As Jones explains,
although people obviously had a rough idea how long a pregnancy was,
they did not know what we know now about the process and the limits
of the gestation period (women must have developed a pretty good
idea, but the confusion of medieval male writers sugggets they very
cannily kept this knowledge to themselves). The only person who would
ever really have known whether she conceived before or after her
husband's return was Cecily. Perhaps as Edward grew up a resemblance
to his true father would have become evident, but that would have
been a gradual process.

4. Families of that status didn't air their dirty linen in public,
and the cuckold was a much-derided figure in medieval society. So it
would have been a very difficult thing for York to do even if he had
been 100% convinced that Edward was not his son (imagine accidentally
dispossessing your own eldest son!). It is true that for very obvious
reasons it was treason for a queen to have an extra-marital affair,
but outside of the realms of literature (ie King Arthur) it took
Henry VIII to take advantage of that particular piece of legislation.
There must throughout the course of the Middle Ages have been many a
noble heir of doubtful paternity, but if anyone can cite me court
cases taken by the wronged husband of the child's mother I'd be
interested to hear of them.

Different families solve their issues in different ways, and York's
silence on the matter is not at all surprising.

As for Edmund bringing a court case before his father's death (ie
when he was 17 or less!), that presupposes the highly unlikely
scenario that he had been told the story of his mother's liaison with
an archer, and also that he could prove Edward was not his father's
child. There were no DNA tests in those days, and if his parents
wouldn't back him up he would have been on to a loser.

Marie
>
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > That case would have had to be brought by Edward's
> > father, and it never was.
> >
> > What's that bibliographic reference on "Jones",
> > anyway?
> >
> > Dora
> >
> > --- aelyon2001 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > You are quite correct that a child born to a married
> > > woman is
> > > presumed to have been fathered by her husband, but
> > > that presumption
> > > is rebuttable by evidence, and there have been
> > > plenty of cases where
> > > the evidence has been accepted.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Well, I don't think we can arrange a head count of historians,
especially as some of them have joined Edward & Richard.

As I've said I'd like to see an exhumation, DNA comparison with
Elizabeth, carbon dating and I'm sorry that some are poe-faced about
this.

Much was learnt from a thorough examination of King Tut, but you get
all types in this World...



--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> <As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this
> convincing & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't
> necessary.>
>
> You should perhaps get an update on this.
>
> As I did quite recently.
>
> When I found out that the current official line is that they are
> considering updating their guide literature to include a broader
> interpretation of events, or at least emphasise that the inscription
> of the Urn dates from the 17thC.
>
> I was also told that the main objection to the bones being disturbed
> for tests is not so much that it is a royal tomb, but that it is a
> tomb, full stop. One where the contents have been examined before.

> Not only that, but it happens to be a tomb that's in a Royal
Peculiar
> that bring with it its own procedures that the present Dean is
> reluctant to pursue with the present Monarch.
>
> And on the contrary, in my experience, 'most' historians *I* know
and
> read are at least as ambivalent about the Urn and its contents as I
> am.
>
> A sidebar really: Some time ago, I was asked by someone setting up
> an online petition to check on the wording on the Urn. When I did
> so, I'd forgotten just how much detail there was on the wretched
> thing and so subseqently suggested they may consider asking for an
> additional plaque to be placed nearby, pointing out that many now
> believe Richard did not murder his nephews, whose bones may or may
> not be those in the Urn.
>
> I later found out that the R3 Soc. had donated such a plaque
donkey's
> years ago, which has since disappeared. The Abbey's present stance
> on signage means that it is unlikely to restore the Society's
> original plaque - should they ever find it (though why they didn't
> offer to return this property bought by subscription when they
> unscrewed it from it's place at the Urn is beyond me as the Society
> is contactable with very little effort). Nor is it likely to agree
> to a new plaque being displayed.
>
> I thought an additional plaque could be a good compromise until new
> incumbents to Crown & see can agree to an examination, but will have
> to remain disappointed on all fronts.
>
> Luckily I'm an optimist <g>.
>
> Lorraine

Whilst I would agree that examination of many human remains has in recent
years provided fresh historical it is useful to remember the condition of
said remains. In the case of Egyptian mummies the preservation of the
remains has helped the scientists enormously. In the case of DNA linking
etc the most recent examples are Louis XVII - which was a vital organ rather
than any other remains, and the Romanov remains found in Russia (and the
fact that the remains were less than a century old and that there were
living relatives to provide DNA comparison assisted greatly) - both
examinations were done for a variety of reasons. In the Romanov's case
proof was vital if they were finally going to be interred and it did solve
at least the mystery of Anna Anderson although not all the Imperial Family
were found if memory serves.

In the case of scraps left in the Urn I can actually see the Dean's point of
view there is no point opening up and exposing the remains to further
analysis if it doesn't solve anything. And given that since their assumed
burial they have been exposed at least twice - firstly in the 17th and then
again in the 20th - both occassions allowing further degredation of the
material and further contamination - I suspect any DNA found would be
useless.

However despite the numerous claims and counter claims since the 30's -
there are very few candidates that the bones could belong to if they are
those of at least two pre pubescent children and are related to each other.
Very few children of note vanished in the last 1000 years of English
History.


----- Original Message -----
From: "willison2001" <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Them bones


> Well, I don't think we can arrange a head count of historians,
> especially as some of them have joined Edward & Richard.
>
> As I've said I'd like to see an exhumation, DNA comparison with
> Elizabeth, carbon dating and I'm sorry that some are poe-faced about
> this.
>
> Much was learnt from a thorough examination of King Tut, but you get
> all types in this World...
>
>
>
> --- In , "lpickering2
> <lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > <As I said, most historians & the Westminster Dean find this
> > convincing & think carbon dating, disturbing the royal tomb, isn't
> > necessary.>
> >
> > You should perhaps get an update on this.
> >
> > As I did quite recently.
> >
> > When I found out that the current official line is that they are
> > considering updating their guide literature to include a broader
> > interpretation of events, or at least emphasise that the inscription
> > of the Urn dates from the 17thC.
> >
> > I was also told that the main objection to the bones being disturbed
> > for tests is not so much that it is a royal tomb, but that it is a
> > tomb, full stop. One where the contents have been examined before.
>
> > Not only that, but it happens to be a tomb that's in a Royal
> Peculiar
> > that bring with it its own procedures that the present Dean is
> > reluctant to pursue with the present Monarch.
> >
> > And on the contrary, in my experience, 'most' historians *I* know
> and
> > read are at least as ambivalent about the Urn and its contents as I
> > am.
> >
> > A sidebar really: Some time ago, I was asked by someone setting up
> > an online petition to check on the wording on the Urn. When I did
> > so, I'd forgotten just how much detail there was on the wretched
> > thing and so subseqently suggested they may consider asking for an
> > additional plaque to be placed nearby, pointing out that many now
> > believe Richard did not murder his nephews, whose bones may or may
> > not be those in the Urn.
> >
> > I later found out that the R3 Soc. had donated such a plaque
> donkey's
> > years ago, which has since disappeared. The Abbey's present stance
> > on signage means that it is unlikely to restore the Society's
> > original plaque - should they ever find it (though why they didn't
> > offer to return this property bought by subscription when they
> > unscrewed it from it's place at the Urn is beyond me as the Society
> > is contactable with very little effort). Nor is it likely to agree
> > to a new plaque being displayed.
> >
> > I thought an additional plaque could be a good compromise until new
> > incumbents to Crown & see can agree to an examination, but will have
> > to remain disappointed on all fronts.
> >
> > Luckily I'm an optimist <g>.
> >
> > Lorraine
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003
<marie@r...>" <marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Marie
> >
> > I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you here. The
> problem
> > is that it is perfectly possible to stack up the known facts in
> > favour of two diametrically opposed conclusions. I will give my
> > responses as follows:-
> > 1) The remarks about Edward IV as 'le fils d'archier' may well
> > represent nothing more than Louis XI taking up vague gossip with
> > enthusiasm and enjoying the joke: 'That Edward IV, swanking about
> > with his fancy palaces and splendid clothes, yet he's just the
son
> of
> > an archer,' rather as I nowadays enjoy saying of the Lord
> > Chancellor, 'That Irvine with his £300 wallpaper, yet he's just
the
> > son of a roofing contractor' (with the difference that the latter
> > happens to be true).
>
> I was responding to query as to who those who claimed Edward to be
> illegitmate believed his true father to be. The rumours were
> persistent and consistent, and reported by both the King of France
> and the Duke of Burgundy. .
>
> But as I said at the outset, and as argued in Michael Jones' book
the
> case does not rest on rumour. When this was all historians thought
> they had to go on, they all dismissed it. It is unprovable without
> DNA but does rest on facts - on dates, on examination of York's
> movements at the critical time. In a nutshell, FOR EDWARD TO HAVE
> BEEN YORK'S SON HE MUST HAVE BEEN BORN PREMATURELY, which given his
> robust physique and health as an adult seems unlikely.
> Marie
>
Marie
I will have to disagree once more. I was most certainly born three
weeks prematurely, but entirely healthy if on the small side, and
from being a robust child I became a robust adult, of a size entirely
commensurate with that of my parents (5ft 6). Equally, I don't know
whether my mother was born prematurely, but she was certainly
baptised hastily just after birth because of fears that she would
die, and again she grew up entirely robust. Edward easily could have
been born slightly prematurely; there would be brief alarm, and a
hasty baptism, but then no reason why he should not grow up robust.



> > 2) Perhaps the Duke of York took Edmund with him to Ireland
rather
> > than Edward because Edward was that bit older and capable of
acting
> > on his own account. It would also be entirely sensible for York
to
> > have someone he could rely on with Salisbury and Warwick. There
was
> > almost exactly a year between Edward and Edmund, and a year can
> make
> > a very big difference when one is 17 and the other 16. By the
time
> of
> > Wakefield, Edward had demonstratd his ability to act
independently,
> > but Edmund was still undr his father's tutelage. It would also
make
> > sense in those dangerous times for York to keep his heir
physically
> > apart from him, in much the same way that the Queen and Prince of
> > Wales nowadays avoid travelling in the same aircraft (there was
> > concern recently about the Prince of Wales and his sons
travelling
> in
> > the same aircraft).
>
> Ann, I completely agree with you that the events I cited are
capable
> of two completely different interpretations, but they do at least
fit
> the theory of Edward's bastardy. If York and Edward had been
> inseparably close it would be different
>
> Marie

It is perfectly possible for fathers and sons not to be inseparably
close, and the mere fact that the father is closer to one of his sons
than another does not mean that the latter's paternity is in doubt. I
would have thought that it was absolutely normal for parents of
either sex to be particularly close to one child, and less so to the
others. York may have been closer to Edmund than to Edward - since
Emund died so young we really know very little about him - but in any
event there were sound practical reasons for keeping Edmund with him
but not Edward.
>
> > 3) I will have to look closely at my copy of Jones, but I'm not
> aware
> > of anything much to suggest that Cecily initially supported
> Clarence
> > and Warwick in 1469-70.
>
> I am talking about the right book, am I, Ann? As I said, it's
buried
> at pres. The one I am thinking about cited Cecily's visit to
Sandwich
> to meet Warwick & Clarence.
> Marie
>
My Jones is fairly readily to hand, so I will try to remember to look
it up this evening.

> How reliable is Vergil's account (written > many years after the
> event)?
> Not very, probably, but I go back to my point about the actual
events
> of 1440. That's what you need to be dealing with.
>
I agree we need to look at the events of the 1440s, but to my mind
they don't prove anything.

> I don't think we can infer much from the
> > pardon from Rome without knowing the text, certainly not a
specific
> > sin - she was a very religious woman.
> > 4) To assume that as Cecily already had a son (Henry) of
> > unquestionable legitimacy at the time of Edward's conception she
> > would think that a bastard wouldn't matter is to ignore the very
> high
> > rate of childhood mortality in the 15th century and for long
> > afterwards. Not only was it necessary to have an heir and a
spare,
> in
> > those days you needed an heir and several spares.
> >
> > Ann
> >
>
> No Ann, if you read my message properly you will see that I didn't
> ignore the very high rate of infant mortality at all. I actually
> suggested Cecily might have thought the chances of losing Henry
about
> one in four. I have made extensive study of the families of the
> nobility in this period, and I would think this is fair - although
as
> we know, Cecily was to lose 5 out of 12 of her children, but she
> didn't know that at this time. In the summer of 1440 she had borne
> two children and both were still alive. As I suggested, factored in
> with the other risks, such as getting pregnant in a single month,
and
> then giving birth to a male child, the risk of presenting her
husband
> with a false male heir probably seemed pretty small (as I
suggested,
> one could work it out mathematically at about 1/72, though I'm sure
> Cecily wouldn't have done this - or known how to). Actually, if any
> child was to die in infancy it was as likely to have been Edward as
> Henry. Also, of course, Cecily could have had no idea at that time
> that her husband would one day claim the throne.
>
I will have to leave replying to this as I have a lecture to give.

Marie

Back from my lecture (unfair dismissal!) and so able to respond.

I was being hypothetical when I suggested that legally speaking,
Edmund could have brought an action to have had Edward declared
illegitimate, as, indeed, Clarence or Richard could have done in the
1470s.

I don't know off-hand of any cases where aristocratic husbands put
aside their wives on the basis of their adultery and production of an
illegitimate child, but putting aside wives for other reasons was
common enough and would have involved fair amount of airing of dirty
linen in public, even if consanguinity was the standard excuse. In
the early 1420s, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester put aside his first
wife, Jacque, Countess of Hainault, for example. Cecily could have
been persuaded to retire quietly into a convent, and Edward destined
for a clerical career.

The Duke of York may have been a very decent man (I'm not sure that
we can say that about him because we know relatively about his
personality) but the most decent of men have their limits, and I
would have thought that the discovery of his wife's adultery (with a
common archer, at that!) and the birth of a son of very doubtful
paternity to be heir to vast domains was quite enough to cause a
proud medieval magnate to hit the roof and send for the canon lawyers
to get the marriage annulled. If he loved his wife, and believed that
she loved him, then to my mind the fury would be yet more
understandable because of the betrayal involved.

As to the final para of your earlier message, if I follow your thesis
you make Cecily sound quite remarkably calculating - very unlikely
that any child would affect the succession to my husband's domains,
so I'm quite safe in having an affair!

Ultimately, of course, we can never know, but I just don't find
Jones's thesis convincing.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> Back from my lecture (unfair dismissal!) and so able to respond.
>
> I was being hypothetical when I suggested that legally speaking,
> Edmund could have brought an action to have had Edward declared
> illegitimate, as, indeed, Clarence or Richard could have done in
the
> 1470s.
>
> I don't know off-hand of any cases where aristocratic husbands put
> aside their wives on the basis of their adultery and production of
an
> illegitimate child, but putting aside wives for other reasons was
> common enough and would have involved fair amount of airing of
dirty
> linen in public, even if consanguinity was the standard excuse. In
> the early 1420s, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester put aside his first
> wife, Jacque, Countess of Hainault, for example. Cecily could have
> been persuaded to retire quietly into a convent, and Edward
destined
> for a clerical career.
>
> The Duke of York may have been a very decent man (I'm not sure that
> we can say that about him because we know relatively about his
> personality) but the most decent of men have their limits, and I
> would have thought that the discovery of his wife's adultery (with
a
> common archer, at that!) and the birth of a son of very doubtful
> paternity to be heir to vast domains was quite enough to cause a
> proud medieval magnate to hit the roof and send for the canon
lawyers
> to get the marriage annulled. If he loved his wife, and believed
that
> she loved him, then to my mind the fury would be yet more
> understandable because of the betrayal involved.
>
> As to the final para of your earlier message, if I follow your
thesis
> you make Cecily sound quite remarkably calculating - very unlikely
> that any child would affect the succession to my husband's domains,
> so I'm quite safe in having an affair!
>
> Ultimately, of course, we can never know, but I just don't find
> Jones's thesis convincing.
>
> Ann


Yes, people did put aside their wives (or husbands) occasionally.
Humphrey of Gloucester was a case in point; no big airing there - he
just left his childless wife on the continent, came home with her
lady-in-waiting, and quietly sued to Rome for an annullment. Another
was York's daughter Ann, who divorced her Lancastrian husband on
grounds of consanguinity. I can't think of a single instance of a
husband repudiating his wife on grounds of adultery. Remember that
what the medievals called divorce was in fact annullment, and was NOT
AVAILABLE on grounds of adultery. There had to be a flaw in the
marriage to start with. You are also not dealing with my point that
York had to accept the possibility that Edward might be his.Adultery
by husbands was very common, and I suspect was far more common with
their wives than we suspect. Sex was taken much more matter-of-factly
in those times. SDaying he must have been legitimate because york
didn't repudiate him just won't do.

I can perfectly accept that you believe Edward to have been
legitimate, but you HAVE to deal with the issue of the dates. And I
always say that an interpretation that makes sense of everybody's
behaviour (and here I am talking about Clarence and Richard) has most
to recommend it.

Marie

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> Back from my lecture (unfair dismissal!) and so able to respond.
>
> I was being hypothetical when I suggested that legally speaking,
> Edmund could have brought an action to have had Edward declared
> illegitimate, as, indeed, Clarence or Richard could have done in
the
> 1470s.
>
As I recall, Clarence did make a brief attempt to claim the throne on
the grounds of Edward's illegitimacy, but got little support. But of
course it would have been completely impossible to bring a court
action such as you suggest against a reigning monarch. Also, time and
again I have to come back to the point that the only 'proof'
available would have been the testimony of the mother. If she
wouldn't come public, there was nothing much any of her younger sons
could do.

Marie


> I don't know off-hand of any cases where aristocratic husbands put
> aside their wives on the basis of their adultery and production of
an
> illegitimate child, but putting aside wives for other reasons was
> common enough and would have involved fair amount of airing of
dirty
> linen in public, even if consanguinity was the standard excuse. In
> the early 1420s, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester put aside his first
> wife, Jacque, Countess of Hainault, for example. Cecily could have
> been persuaded to retire quietly into a convent, and Edward
destined
> for a clerical career.
>
> The Duke of York may have been a very decent man (I'm not sure that
> we can say that about him because we know relatively about his
> personality) but the most decent of men have their limits, and I
> would have thought that the discovery of his wife's adultery (with
a
> common archer, at that!) and the birth of a son of very doubtful
> paternity to be heir to vast domains was quite enough to cause a
> proud medieval magnate to hit the roof and send for the canon
lawyers
> to get the marriage annulled. If he loved his wife, and believed
that
> she loved him, then to my mind the fury would be yet more
> understandable because of the betrayal involved.
>
> As to the final para of your earlier message, if I follow your
thesis
> you make Cecily sound quite remarkably calculating - very unlikely
> that any child would affect the succession to my husband's domains,
> so I'm quite safe in having an affair!
>
> Ultimately, of course, we can never know, but I just don't find
> Jones's thesis convincing.
>
> Ann

Marie

I suspect we are reaching a point of irreconcileable differences here!

In my view I have dealt with the dates - there is no reason why a
child born three weeks' prematurely should not be entirely healthy
(twice that might well be a different matter).

You say that sex was taken more matter-of-factly in those days.
Perhaps it was, I don't know. However, inheritance was take very
seriously indeed and I have to doubt whether the greatest magnate of
the realm would stomach a probable (or even a possible) cuckoo in the
nst as his heir). York and Cecily were sufficiently closely related
to be within the bonds of consanguinity (both descended from Edward
III - York twice over - plus more distant kinships), so getting an
annulment would not have been all that difficult (just get the canon
lawyers to find something slightly suspect in the dispensation).

Ann


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Marie
> >
> > Back from my lecture (unfair dismissal!) and so able to respond.
> >
> > I was being hypothetical when I suggested that legally speaking,
> > Edmund could have brought an action to have had Edward declared
> > illegitimate, as, indeed, Clarence or Richard could have done in
> the
> > 1470s.
> >
> > I don't know off-hand of any cases where aristocratic husbands
put
> > aside their wives on the basis of their adultery and production
of
> an
> > illegitimate child, but putting aside wives for other reasons was
> > common enough and would have involved fair amount of airing of
> dirty
> > linen in public, even if consanguinity was the standard excuse.
In
> > the early 1420s, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester put aside his first
> > wife, Jacque, Countess of Hainault, for example. Cecily could
have
> > been persuaded to retire quietly into a convent, and Edward
> destined
> > for a clerical career.
> >
> > The Duke of York may have been a very decent man (I'm not sure
that
> > we can say that about him because we know relatively about his
> > personality) but the most decent of men have their limits, and I
> > would have thought that the discovery of his wife's adultery
(with
> a
> > common archer, at that!) and the birth of a son of very doubtful
> > paternity to be heir to vast domains was quite enough to cause a
> > proud medieval magnate to hit the roof and send for the canon
> lawyers
> > to get the marriage annulled. If he loved his wife, and believed
> that
> > she loved him, then to my mind the fury would be yet more
> > understandable because of the betrayal involved.
> >
> > As to the final para of your earlier message, if I follow your
> thesis
> > you make Cecily sound quite remarkably calculating - very
unlikely
> > that any child would affect the succession to my husband's
domains,
> > so I'm quite safe in having an affair!
> >
> > Ultimately, of course, we can never know, but I just don't find
> > Jones's thesis convincing.
> >
> > Ann
>
>
> Yes, people did put aside their wives (or husbands) occasionally.
> Humphrey of Gloucester was a case in point; no big airing there -
he
> just left his childless wife on the continent, came home with her
> lady-in-waiting, and quietly sued to Rome for an annullment.
Another
> was York's daughter Ann, who divorced her Lancastrian husband on
> grounds of consanguinity. I can't think of a single instance of a
> husband repudiating his wife on grounds of adultery. Remember that
> what the medievals called divorce was in fact annullment, and was
NOT
> AVAILABLE on grounds of adultery. There had to be a flaw in the
> marriage to start with. You are also not dealing with my point that
> York had to accept the possibility that Edward might be
his.Adultery
> by husbands was very common, and I suspect was far more common with
> their wives than we suspect. Sex was taken much more matter-of-
factly
> in those times. SDaying he must have been legitimate because york
> didn't repudiate him just won't do.
>
> I can perfectly accept that you believe Edward to have been
> legitimate, but you HAVE to deal with the issue of the dates. And I
> always say that an interpretation that makes sense of everybody's
> behaviour (and here I am talking about Clarence and Richard) has
most
> to recommend it.
>
> Marie

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003
> <marie@r...>" <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you here. The
> > problem
> > > is that it is perfectly possible to stack up the known facts in
> > > favour of two diametrically opposed conclusions. I will give my
> > > responses as follows:-
> > > 1) The remarks about Edward IV as 'le fils d'archier' may well
> > > represent nothing more than Louis XI taking up vague gossip
with
> > > enthusiasm and enjoying the joke: 'That Edward IV, swanking
about
> > > with his fancy palaces and splendid clothes, yet he's just the
> son
> > of
> > > an archer,' rather as I nowadays enjoy saying of the Lord
> > > Chancellor, 'That Irvine with his £300 wallpaper, yet he's just
> the
> > > son of a roofing contractor' (with the difference that the
latter
> > > happens to be true).
> >
> > I was responding to query as to who those who claimed Edward to
be
> > illegitmate believed his true father to be. The rumours were
> > persistent and consistent, and reported by both the King of
France
> > and the Duke of Burgundy. .
> >
> > But as I said at the outset, and as argued in Michael Jones' book
> the
> > case does not rest on rumour. When this was all historians
thought
> > they had to go on, they all dismissed it. It is unprovable
without
> > DNA but does rest on facts - on dates, on examination of York's
> > movements at the critical time. In a nutshell, FOR EDWARD TO
HAVE
> > BEEN YORK'S SON HE MUST HAVE BEEN BORN PREMATURELY, which given
his
> > robust physique and health as an adult seems unlikely.
> > Marie
> >
> Marie
> I will have to disagree once more. I was most certainly born three
> weeks prematurely, but entirely healthy if on the small side, and
> from being a robust child I became a robust adult, of a size
entirely
> commensurate with that of my parents (5ft 6). Equally, I don't know
> whether my mother was born prematurely, but she was certainly
> baptised hastily just after birth because of fears that she would
> die, and again she grew up entirely robust. Edward easily could
have
> been born slightly prematurely; there would be brief alarm, and a
> hasty baptism, but then no reason why he should not grow up robust.
>
Ann,
Snap! I'm 5' 6" too, and only 6 1/2 lb birthweight (being a twin).
However, I'm afraid that, so far as I remember from my childbearing
days, three weeks early doesn't count as premature. I do agree with
you that Jones tries to argue for normal pregnancies being much more
uniform in length than they actually are. There is I agree quite a
spread with regard to how long different babies take to mature, I
think the normal spread is generally regarded as three weeks either
side of 40 weeks pregnancy (ie 38 weeks gestation)*. My own family
tend to deliver late (even twins). I don't think a baby born after 36
weeks pregnancy (34 weeks' gestation) is classed as premature unless
it shows physical signs of not being ready to be born, but someone
with medical knowledge can correct me.

*For those listers not familiar with the procedure, doctors work on a
rule-of-thumb average gestation period of 38 weeks (ie the average
baby is ready to be born 38 weeks after conception). But since most
women ovulate about 14 days into a menstrual cycle, the counting is
done as 40 weeks from the 1st day of the last period. This is called
the 'period of pregnancy', and these are the number of weeks always
quoted.

This toing and froing is going on so long I've had to unearth my copy
of Jones to see when York actually was away!

To start with, we need to count back 38 weeks from 28th April 1442.
This takes us to 5th August 1441. Looking at Jones, to be fair I see
the case is not quite as straightforward as he suggests. He says York
would not have returned until 20th August or later. In the best case,
if he returned on 20th August and Cecily was ovulating and conceived
immediately, Edward would only have been 15 days early. In the worst
case if he had arrived say a week later, and Cecily was not ready to
conceive for another month after that, then Edward would have to be 7
weeks early - clinically premature.

So, apologies, not having the source to hand led me into making
unjustified claims. If Edward was York's son he must have been born
something between 2 weeks and 7 weeks early. Perhaps actually
premature, perhaps not.

I have never claimed that the theory is provable without DNA
analysis, but there certainly were rumours on the continent, centring
round a particular individual, and speaking purely statistically
Edward is more likely to have been conceived in the two weeks before
or after 20th August than afterwards. I do believe any analysis of
the period that doesn't even address the possibility of Edward's
bastardy and run through the implications is not doing its job.

Marie
>
>
> > > 2) Perhaps the Duke of York took Edmund with him to Ireland
> rather
> > > than Edward because Edward was that bit older and capable of
> acting
> > > on his own account. It would also be entirely sensible for York
> to
> > > have someone he could rely on with Salisbury and Warwick. There
> was
> > > almost exactly a year between Edward and Edmund, and a year can
> > make
> > > a very big difference when one is 17 and the other 16. By the
> time
> > of
> > > Wakefield, Edward had demonstratd his ability to act
> independently,
> > > but Edmund was still undr his father's tutelage. It would also
> make
> > > sense in those dangerous times for York to keep his heir
> physically
> > > apart from him, in much the same way that the Queen and Prince
of
> > > Wales nowadays avoid travelling in the same aircraft (there was
> > > concern recently about the Prince of Wales and his sons
> travelling
> > in
> > > the same aircraft).
> >
> > Ann, I completely agree with you that the events I cited are
> capable
> > of two completely different interpretations, but they do at least
> fit
> > the theory of Edward's bastardy. If York and Edward had been
> > inseparably close it would be different
> >
> > Marie
>
> It is perfectly possible for fathers and sons not to be inseparably
> close, and the mere fact that the father is closer to one of his
sons
> than another does not mean that the latter's paternity is in doubt.
I
> would have thought that it was absolutely normal for parents of
> either sex to be particularly close to one child, and less so to
the
> others. York may have been closer to Edmund than to Edward - since
> Emund died so young we really know very little about him - but in
any
> event there were sound practical reasons for keeping Edmund with
him
> but not Edward.
> >
> > > 3) I will have to look closely at my copy of Jones, but I'm not
> > aware
> > > of anything much to suggest that Cecily initially supported
> > Clarence
> > > and Warwick in 1469-70.
> >
> > I am talking about the right book, am I, Ann? As I said, it's
> buried
> > at pres. The one I am thinking about cited Cecily's visit to
> Sandwich
> > to meet Warwick & Clarence.
> > Marie
> >
> My Jones is fairly readily to hand, so I will try to remember to
look
> it up this evening.
>
> > How reliable is Vergil's account (written > many years after the
> > event)?
> > Not very, probably, but I go back to my point about the actual
> events
> > of 1440. That's what you need to be dealing with.
> >
> I agree we need to look at the events of the 1440s, but to my mind
> they don't prove anything.
>
> > I don't think we can infer much from the
> > > pardon from Rome without knowing the text, certainly not a
> specific
> > > sin - she was a very religious woman.
> > > 4) To assume that as Cecily already had a son (Henry) of
> > > unquestionable legitimacy at the time of Edward's conception
she
> > > would think that a bastard wouldn't matter is to ignore the
very
> > high
> > > rate of childhood mortality in the 15th century and for long
> > > afterwards. Not only was it necessary to have an heir and a
> spare,
> > in
> > > those days you needed an heir and several spares.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> >
> > No Ann, if you read my message properly you will see that I
didn't
> > ignore the very high rate of infant mortality at all. I actually
> > suggested Cecily might have thought the chances of losing Henry
> about
> > one in four. I have made extensive study of the families of the
> > nobility in this period, and I would think this is fair -
although
> as
> > we know, Cecily was to lose 5 out of 12 of her children, but she
> > didn't know that at this time. In the summer of 1440 she had
borne
> > two children and both were still alive. As I suggested, factored
in
> > with the other risks, such as getting pregnant in a single month,
> and
> > then giving birth to a male child, the risk of presenting her
> husband
> > with a false male heir probably seemed pretty small (as I
> suggested,
> > one could work it out mathematically at about 1/72, though I'm
sure
> > Cecily wouldn't have done this - or known how to). Actually, if
any
> > child was to die in infancy it was as likely to have been Edward
as
> > Henry. Also, of course, Cecily could have had no idea at that
time
> > that her husband would one day claim the throne.
> >
> I will have to leave replying to this as I have a lecture to give.

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> I suspect we are reaching a point of irreconcileable differences
here!
>
> In my view I have dealt with the dates - there is no reason why a
> child born three weeks' prematurely should not be entirely healthy
> (twice that might well be a different matter).
>
> You say that sex was taken more matter-of-factly in those days.
> Perhaps it was, I don't know. However, inheritance was take very
> seriously indeed and I have to doubt whether the greatest magnate
of
> the realm would stomach a probable (or even a possible) cuckoo in
the
> nst as his heir). York and Cecily were sufficiently closely related
> to be within the bonds of consanguinity (both descended from Edward
> III - York twice over - plus more distant kinships), so getting an
> annulment would not have been all that difficult (just get the
canon
> lawyers to find something slightly suspect in the dispensation).
>
> Ann

Yes, I suspect we are. All I am arguing for is that we keep the
possibility open, with a view to possible DNA analysis one day. To
dismiss the problem out of hand doesn't seem right. As for it being
easy for York to get an annulment, I'm not so sure. A lot of whether
one could get one or not was politics. Henry VIII couldn't get the
Pope to grant him one. Bear in mind, York's father had been executed
for treason, and it was to tie him safely into the Lancastrian fold
that Henry V had given his wardship and marriage to Westmoreland, the
husband of his own aunt Joan Beaufort. York may not initially have
been at all thrilled at this 'forcible' marriage to a Lancastrian
baby. Perhaps this more than anything explains the barren years at
the start of their marriage. Cecily's uncle Henry Beaufort was a
Cardinal, and alive until 1447. I think York would have found it
impossible to obtain an annulment. Perhaps he had already tried for
one before their first child was conceived, and been roundly turned
down.

MARIE
>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Back from my lecture (unfair dismissal!) and so able to respond.
> > >
> > > I was being hypothetical when I suggested that legally
speaking,
> > > Edmund could have brought an action to have had Edward declared
> > > illegitimate, as, indeed, Clarence or Richard could have done
in
> > the
> > > 1470s.
> > >
> > > I don't know off-hand of any cases where aristocratic husbands
> put
> > > aside their wives on the basis of their adultery and production
> of
> > an
> > > illegitimate child, but putting aside wives for other reasons
was
> > > common enough and would have involved fair amount of airing of
> > dirty
> > > linen in public, even if consanguinity was the standard excuse.
> In
> > > the early 1420s, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester put aside his
first
> > > wife, Jacque, Countess of Hainault, for example. Cecily could
> have
> > > been persuaded to retire quietly into a convent, and Edward
> > destined
> > > for a clerical career.
> > >
> > > The Duke of York may have been a very decent man (I'm not sure
> that
> > > we can say that about him because we know relatively about his
> > > personality) but the most decent of men have their limits, and
I
> > > would have thought that the discovery of his wife's adultery
> (with
> > a
> > > common archer, at that!) and the birth of a son of very
doubtful
> > > paternity to be heir to vast domains was quite enough to cause
a
> > > proud medieval magnate to hit the roof and send for the canon
> > lawyers
> > > to get the marriage annulled. If he loved his wife, and
believed
> > that
> > > she loved him, then to my mind the fury would be yet more
> > > understandable because of the betrayal involved.
> > >
> > > As to the final para of your earlier message, if I follow your
> > thesis
> > > you make Cecily sound quite remarkably calculating - very
> unlikely
> > > that any child would affect the succession to my husband's
> domains,
> > > so I'm quite safe in having an affair!
> > >
> > > Ultimately, of course, we can never know, but I just don't find
> > > Jones's thesis convincing.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> >
> > Yes, people did put aside their wives (or husbands) occasionally.
> > Humphrey of Gloucester was a case in point; no big airing there -
> he
> > just left his childless wife on the continent, came home with her
> > lady-in-waiting, and quietly sued to Rome for an annullment.
> Another
> > was York's daughter Ann, who divorced her Lancastrian husband on
> > grounds of consanguinity. I can't think of a single instance of a
> > husband repudiating his wife on grounds of adultery. Remember
that
> > what the medievals called divorce was in fact annullment, and was
> NOT
> > AVAILABLE on grounds of adultery. There had to be a flaw in the
> > marriage to start with. You are also not dealing with my point
that
> > York had to accept the possibility that Edward might be
> his.Adultery
> > by husbands was very common, and I suspect was far more common
with
> > their wives than we suspect. Sex was taken much more matter-of-
> factly
> > in those times. SDaying he must have been legitimate because york
> > didn't repudiate him just won't do.
> >
> > I can perfectly accept that you believe Edward to have been
> > legitimate, but you HAVE to deal with the issue of the dates. And
I
> > always say that an interpretation that makes sense of everybody's
> > behaviour (and here I am talking about Clarence and Richard) has
> most
> > to recommend it.
> >
> > Marie

< Well, I don't think we can arrange a head count of historians,
> especially as some of them have joined Edward & Richard.>

That's why I said most that I know and read...

<As I've said I'd like to see an exhumation, DNA comparison with
Elizabeth, carbon dating and I'm sorry that some are poe-faced about
this.>

Since Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth her mother are buried in
seperate Royal Peculiars, it's not likely to happen in our present
Queen's lifetime.

Whilst I'm not bothered one way or another - I find the 'mystery' of
what happened to Francis Lovell post-Bosworth and late post-Stoke of
far greater interest than what happened to the boys - I do respect
other people's feelings about this issue. Once I'm dead and gone, you
can pretty much do anything you want to me, is how I see it today, but
having lost someone close myself in recent times, I can more readily
sympathise when I read that some people find disturbing the dead
distasteful. 'Po-faced' it may be, but then, we all bring our own
belief system to the table, don't we?

I remember being extremely impressed with one female forensic
archeologist on TV who was examining remains on a battlefield
somewhere. She had teenage sons of her own, she said in her
voice-over, and was extremely respectful, while being extremely
professional in her whole approach and medical examination.

I would have no problem handing over the contents to her. (I did make
a note of her name and University, and told the Petitioners on the
other List about her, but the exact details escape me now: Margaret
Somebody of Birmingham Univ, UK).

< Much was learnt from a thorough examination of King Tut>

So it was. And again, modern examination methods seem to be so much
more respectful - as well as accurate - than those of the past (where
I think they hacked the poor lad's head off, IIRC).

Lorraine

Well, for once we really do agree.

I think remains should be treated with respect. Sometimes I may
joke, but for the people who lived through the late 15th century &
were terrorised by the threat of execution/murder it was a ghastly
tragedy.

But remains are just that. And archaeology does exist & if it
informs people of things which interest them why not exhume & examine?
I may donate my body to science, but will they want it?

These relatives of about 500 years ago are very remote from the Queen.
They were real monarchs with power not a paper monarch. I think
the occasional, selected autopsy - Manchester University is very
good for this type of thing - would assist historical enquiry.
Personally, I'd start with the 'princes' for carbon dating & a, if
possible allowing for the degradation of time, DNA comparison with
Elizabeth of York, who are all buried at Westminster.

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < Well, I don't think we can arrange a head count of historians,
> > especially as some of them have joined Edward & Richard.>
>
> That's why I said most that I know and read...
>
> <As I've said I'd like to see an exhumation, DNA comparison with
> Elizabeth, carbon dating and I'm sorry that some are poe-faced about
> this.>
>
> Since Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth her mother are buried in
> seperate Royal Peculiars, it's not likely to happen in our present
> Queen's lifetime.
>
> Whilst I'm not bothered one way or another - I find the 'mystery' of
> what happened to Francis Lovell post-Bosworth and late post-Stoke of
> far greater interest than what happened to the boys - I do respect
> other people's feelings about this issue. Once I'm dead and gone,
you
> can pretty much do anything you want to me, is how I see it today,
but
> having lost someone close myself in recent times, I can more readily
> sympathise when I read that some people find disturbing the dead
> distasteful. 'Po-faced' it may be, but then, we all bring our own
> belief system to the table, don't we?
>
> I remember being extremely impressed with one female forensic
> archeologist on TV who was examining remains on a battlefield
> somewhere. She had teenage sons of her own, she said in her
> voice-over, and was extremely respectful, while being extremely
> professional in her whole approach and medical examination.
>
> I would have no problem handing over the contents to her. (I did
make
> a note of her name and University, and told the Petitioners on the
> other List about her, but the exact details escape me now: Margaret
> Somebody of Birmingham Univ, UK).
>
> < Much was learnt from a thorough examination of King Tut>
>
> So it was. And again, modern examination methods seem to be so much
> more respectful - as well as accurate - than those of the past
(where
> I think they hacked the poor lad's head off, IIRC).
>
> Lorraine

Marie

to respond to your message and its immediate predecessor:-

1) I was using 'premature' in its non-technical sense, meaning
anybody born less than a clear nine months after conception. I might
have been more than three weeks early, I don't know, as my parents'
wedding night was the earliest possible opportunity for conception,
and things might, of course, have happened later. One night is enough
to do it - look at George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, who only ever
spent one night together in their entire marriage, most of which
George spent drunkenly in the fireplace, yet the consequence was the
ill-fated Princess Charlotte. Yes, I know, that favours your thesis
as much as mine, i.e. a one night stand with Blayburn would be
enough, but why not a night spent celebrating the Duke's return from
campaign?

2) A slow start to childbearing and offspring then arriving thick and
fast may well not have been all that uncommon in the days of large
families. My maternal grandparents married in August 1919, their
first living child (after a stillbirth and at least one miscarriage)
was not born until September 1923, the next 363 days later in
September 1924 (breastfeeding is not a reliable contraceptive
method!) and two more in 1927 and 1929. Whether there were any more
miscarriages in that three-year gap I have no idea. My grandmother
was born in 1891, so well into her thirties when producing this
brood. We don't enough enough about the early years of York and
Cecily's marriage to say whether they were initially less than
enamoured of one another, or simply often physically separated in an
age when there was nothing unusual in husbands and wives spending
long periods apart.

3) Would Cardinal Beaufort necessarily have been an impediment to
York's obtaining an annulment had he sought one? Depends how much of
a political pragmatist he was and how fond he was of his niece on a
personal level. I have the impression of him as a churchman of the
worldly kind, so quite capable of putting politics above family ties.
Since there is no evidence of any attempt to gain an annulment, we
shall never know. Henry VIII's difficulties in getting an annulment
were unusual.

4) Finally, I'm not saying that the Jones thesis is impossible,
simply that it's unlikely, and all the evidence Jones marshals to
support it is open to alternative explanations.

Ann


> Yes, I suspect we are. All I am arguing for is that we keep the
> possibility open, with a view to possible DNA analysis one day. To
> dismiss the problem out of hand doesn't seem right. As for it being
> easy for York to get an annulment, I'm not so sure. A lot of
whether
> one could get one or not was politics. Henry VIII couldn't get the
> Pope to grant him one. Bear in mind, York's father had been
executed
> for treason, and it was to tie him safely into the Lancastrian fold
> that Henry V had given his wardship and marriage to Westmoreland,
the
> husband of his own aunt Joan Beaufort. York may not initially have
> been at all thrilled at this 'forcible' marriage to a Lancastrian
> baby. Perhaps this more than anything explains the barren years at
> the start of their marriage. Cecily's uncle Henry Beaufort was a
> Cardinal, and alive until 1447. I think York would have found it
> impossible to obtain an annulment. Perhaps he had already tried for
> one before their first child was conceived, and been roundly turned
> down.
>
> MARIE
> >
> >

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> to respond to your message and its immediate predecessor:-
>
> 1) I was using 'premature' in its non-technical sense, meaning
> anybody born less than a clear nine months after conception. I
might
> have been more than three weeks early, I don't know, as my parents'
> wedding night was the earliest possible opportunity for conception,
> and things might, of course, have happened later. One night is
enough
> to do it - look at George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, who only
ever
> spent one night together in their entire marriage, most of which
> George spent drunkenly in the fireplace, yet the consequence was
the
> ill-fated Princess Charlotte. Yes, I know, that favours your thesis
> as much as mine, i.e. a one night stand with Blayburn would be
> enough, but why not a night spent celebrating the Duke's return
from
> campaign?

I really don't know why we are arguing. I do NOT pretend Jones
has 'proved his case'. Nor have you. Yes, of course one can conceive
in a night. I knew a girl who married a virgin and conceived on her
wedding night. But that is a relatively small chance, obviously. One
night stands result in offspring rather more often precisely because
the night in question is not randomly chosen. A woman is both more in
the mood for sex and more attractive to males when she is fertile.
But the choice isn't between a one-night stand with Blayburn and a
one-night reunion with her husband. There was a full five-week period
when Cecily and Blayburn might have had relations.
Actually, Henry VIII's difficulties weren't at all unusual in cases
where politics were involved. It took Warwick's brother the
Archbishop of York years to extract even a dispensation for
Clarence's marriage to Isabel.
Yes, everything is open to other interpretations, but it does remain
the fact that taken purely statistically the odds of Edward IV not
being york's are higher than of his being york's. That doesn't of
course tell you whose he was, only the bare statistical
probablilities. Besides, as regards York's behaviour, I have actually
been responding to your own arguments, which as you may have guessed
I don't find convincing. But as you may have read in my last reply
message,I am myself not particularly sold on the notion that (at
least until pretty late in the day) he believed Edwardto have been
conceived in adultery. This does not of course prove that he wasn't,
only that Cecily had succeeded, honestly or not, in passing the child
off to him as his own. We cannot know the truth, but I do believe
that if we are to assess the politicial events of the period
properly, then we must do so bearing both possibilities in mind.
Edward's bastardy has not been considered or discussed by modern
historians until now, but it was an issue that in his own time
refused to go away. All I suggest is that we both keep an open mind.

Marie
>
> 2) A slow start to childbearing and offspring then arriving thick
and
> fast may well not have been all that uncommon in the days of large
> families. My maternal grandparents married in August 1919, their
> first living child (after a stillbirth and at least one
miscarriage)
> was not born until September 1923, the next 363 days later in
> September 1924 (breastfeeding is not a reliable contraceptive
> method!) and two more in 1927 and 1929. Whether there were any more
> miscarriages in that three-year gap I have no idea. My grandmother
> was born in 1891, so well into her thirties when producing this
> brood. We don't enough enough about the early years of York and
> Cecily's marriage to say whether they were initially less than
> enamoured of one another, or simply often physically separated in
an
> age when there was nothing unusual in husbands and wives spending
> long periods apart.

Well, it is one of those things often cited that Cecily followed
Richard everywhere. She was six months pregnant with George when she
sailed to Ireland, and pregnant with Margaret when they returned from
France. Yes, we all know instances. It is possible that there were
years of miscarriages, my mother has a cousin.... Again, however, we
are piling statistical longshots on top of other statistical
longshots. And I think stillbirths we would know about as we have a
complete list of the children born to the couple, including the five
who did not survive. My only point was that the slow start to
childbearing MAY have been due to a lack of commitment at that point.
All these things are open to many interpretations. It is, however,
the case that this was a Lancastrian marriage made for Richard by the
regime that had executed his father.
>
> 3) Would Cardinal Beaufort necessarily have been an impediment to
> York's obtaining an annulment had he sought one? Depends how much
of
> a political pragmatist he was and how fond he was of his niece on a
> personal level. I have the impression of him as a churchman of the
> worldly kind, so quite capable of putting politics above family
ties.
> Since there is no evidence of any attempt to gain an annulment, we
> shall never know. Henry VIII's difficulties in getting an annulment
> were unusual.
>
> 4) Finally, I'm not saying that the Jones thesis is impossible,
> simply that it's unlikely, and all the evidence Jones marshals to
> support it is open to alternative explanations.
>
> Ann
>
>
> > Yes, I suspect we are. All I am arguing for is that we keep the
> > possibility open, with a view to possible DNA analysis one day.
To
> > dismiss the problem out of hand doesn't seem right. As for it
being
> > easy for York to get an annulment, I'm not so sure. A lot of
> whether
> > one could get one or not was politics. Henry VIII couldn't get
the
> > Pope to grant him one. Bear in mind, York's father had been
> executed
> > for treason, and it was to tie him safely into the Lancastrian
fold
> > that Henry V had given his wardship and marriage to Westmoreland,
> the
> > husband of his own aunt Joan Beaufort. York may not initially
have
> > been at all thrilled at this 'forcible' marriage to a Lancastrian
> > baby. Perhaps this more than anything explains the barren years
at
> > the start of their marriage. Cecily's uncle Henry Beaufort was a
> > Cardinal, and alive until 1447. I think York would have found it
> > impossible to obtain an annulment. Perhaps he had already tried
for
> > one before their first child was conceived, and been roundly
turned
> > down.
> >
> > MARIE
> > >
> > >

In a message dated 3/5/03 12:52:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lpickering2@... writes:


> So it was. And again, modern examination methods seem to be so much
> more respectful - as well as accurate - than those of the past (where
> I think they hacked the poor lad's head off, IIRC).

I saw a show on this...King Tut was basically glued into the bottom half of
his inner coffin from all the resin. So to get the mummy out, they basically
cut him into pieces and then reassembled him, destroying a lot of forensic
evidence in the process. Ugh no wonder the egyptian government won't let his
body out for medical examination now. I remember Bob Brier saying something
about getting a portable CAT scan into the Valley of the Kings. But oops,
this isn't an ancient egypt list
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

It sounds to me as though a portable cat scan may be relevant on
some of the English royal tombs.

By the way, the contemporary record stated that Henry VI bled &
blood was found in his hair when the tomb was opened. Sounds fairly
conclusive that he bled!

Very few have suggested that he wasn't executed on the orders of
Edward IV, who was even prepared to execute his own brother, supported
by his right hand man: Richard!

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/03 12:52:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> lpickering2@y... writes:
>
>
> > So it was. And again, modern examination methods seem to be so
much
> > more respectful - as well as accurate - than those of the past
(where
> > I think they hacked the poor lad's head off, IIRC).
>
> I saw a show on this...King Tut was basically glued into the bottom
half of
> his inner coffin from all the resin. So to get the mummy out, they
basically
> cut him into pieces and then reassembled him, destroying a lot of
forensic
> evidence in the process. Ugh no wonder the egyptian government won't
let his
> body out for medical examination now. I remember Bob Brier saying
something
> about getting a portable CAT scan into the Valley of the Kings. But
oops,
> this isn't an ancient egypt list
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

In a message dated 3/5/03 7:13:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> Very few have suggested that he wasn't executed on the orders of
> Edward IV, who was even prepared to execute his own brother, supported
> by his right hand man: Richard!

If Henry VI wasn't so feeble and sickly I would think he was most defnitely
executed. But since he wasn't exactly the most healthiest person, there's
that little question of "what if he did collapse and die?" I'm leaning more
towards Edward ordering his death though. Was Richard involved? Maybe. Did he
support it? Almost certainly
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Marie

There we must end, I fear. You find Jones's thesis convincing. I do
not. We are most unlikely ever to know the truth.

I have enjoyed this correspondence, and I think we have managed to
disagree without resorting to personal insults.

Ann


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Marie
> >
> > to respond to your message and its immediate predecessor:-
> >
> > 1) I was using 'premature' in its non-technical sense, meaning
> > anybody born less than a clear nine months after conception. I
> might
> > have been more than three weeks early, I don't know, as my
parents'
> > wedding night was the earliest possible opportunity for
conception,
> > and things might, of course, have happened later. One night is
> enough
> > to do it - look at George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, who only
> ever
> > spent one night together in their entire marriage, most of which
> > George spent drunkenly in the fireplace, yet the consequence was
> the
> > ill-fated Princess Charlotte. Yes, I know, that favours your
thesis
> > as much as mine, i.e. a one night stand with Blayburn would be
> > enough, but why not a night spent celebrating the Duke's return
> from
> > campaign?
>
> I really don't know why we are arguing. I do NOT pretend Jones
> has 'proved his case'. Nor have you. Yes, of course one can
conceive
> in a night. I knew a girl who married a virgin and conceived on her
> wedding night. But that is a relatively small chance, obviously.
One
> night stands result in offspring rather more often precisely
because
> the night in question is not randomly chosen. A woman is both more
in
> the mood for sex and more attractive to males when she is fertile.
> But the choice isn't between a one-night stand with Blayburn and a
> one-night reunion with her husband. There was a full five-week
period
> when Cecily and Blayburn might have had relations.
> Actually, Henry VIII's difficulties weren't at all unusual in cases
> where politics were involved. It took Warwick's brother the
> Archbishop of York years to extract even a dispensation for
> Clarence's marriage to Isabel.
> Yes, everything is open to other interpretations, but it does
remain
> the fact that taken purely statistically the odds of Edward IV not
> being york's are higher than of his being york's. That doesn't of
> course tell you whose he was, only the bare statistical
> probablilities. Besides, as regards York's behaviour, I have
actually
> been responding to your own arguments, which as you may have
guessed
> I don't find convincing. But as you may have read in my last reply
> message,I am myself not particularly sold on the notion that (at
> least until pretty late in the day) he believed Edwardto have been
> conceived in adultery. This does not of course prove that he
wasn't,
> only that Cecily had succeeded, honestly or not, in passing the
child
> off to him as his own. We cannot know the truth, but I do believe
> that if we are to assess the politicial events of the period
> properly, then we must do so bearing both possibilities in mind.
> Edward's bastardy has not been considered or discussed by modern
> historians until now, but it was an issue that in his own time
> refused to go away. All I suggest is that we both keep an open mind.
>
> Marie
> >
> > 2) A slow start to childbearing and offspring then arriving thick
> and
> > fast may well not have been all that uncommon in the days of
large
> > families. My maternal grandparents married in August 1919, their
> > first living child (after a stillbirth and at least one
> miscarriage)
> > was not born until September 1923, the next 363 days later in
> > September 1924 (breastfeeding is not a reliable contraceptive
> > method!) and two more in 1927 and 1929. Whether there were any
more
> > miscarriages in that three-year gap I have no idea. My
grandmother
> > was born in 1891, so well into her thirties when producing this
> > brood. We don't enough enough about the early years of York and
> > Cecily's marriage to say whether they were initially less than
> > enamoured of one another, or simply often physically separated in
> an
> > age when there was nothing unusual in husbands and wives spending
> > long periods apart.
>
> Well, it is one of those things often cited that Cecily followed
> Richard everywhere. She was six months pregnant with George when
she
> sailed to Ireland, and pregnant with Margaret when they returned
from
> France. Yes, we all know instances. It is possible that there were
> years of miscarriages, my mother has a cousin.... Again, however,
we
> are piling statistical longshots on top of other statistical
> longshots. And I think stillbirths we would know about as we have a
> complete list of the children born to the couple, including the
five
> who did not survive. My only point was that the slow start to
> childbearing MAY have been due to a lack of commitment at that
point.
> All these things are open to many interpretations. It is, however,
> the case that this was a Lancastrian marriage made for Richard by
the
> regime that had executed his father.
> >
> > 3) Would Cardinal Beaufort necessarily have been an impediment to
> > York's obtaining an annulment had he sought one? Depends how much
> of
> > a political pragmatist he was and how fond he was of his niece on
a
> > personal level. I have the impression of him as a churchman of
the
> > worldly kind, so quite capable of putting politics above family
> ties.
> > Since there is no evidence of any attempt to gain an annulment,
we
> > shall never know. Henry VIII's difficulties in getting an
annulment
> > were unusual.
> >
> > 4) Finally, I'm not saying that the Jones thesis is impossible,
> > simply that it's unlikely, and all the evidence Jones marshals to
> > support it is open to alternative explanations.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > > Yes, I suspect we are. All I am arguing for is that we keep the
> > > possibility open, with a view to possible DNA analysis one day.
> To
> > > dismiss the problem out of hand doesn't seem right. As for it
> being
> > > easy for York to get an annulment, I'm not so sure. A lot of
> > whether
> > > one could get one or not was politics. Henry VIII couldn't get
> the
> > > Pope to grant him one. Bear in mind, York's father had been
> > executed
> > > for treason, and it was to tie him safely into the Lancastrian
> fold
> > > that Henry V had given his wardship and marriage to
Westmoreland,
> > the
> > > husband of his own aunt Joan Beaufort. York may not initially
> have
> > > been at all thrilled at this 'forcible' marriage to a
Lancastrian
> > > baby. Perhaps this more than anything explains the barren years
> at
> > > the start of their marriage. Cecily's uncle Henry Beaufort was
a
> > > Cardinal, and alive until 1447. I think York would have found
it
> > > impossible to obtain an annulment. Perhaps he had already tried
> for
> > > one before their first child was conceived, and been roundly
> turned
> > > down.
> > >
> > > MARIE
> > > >
> > > >

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/03 7:13:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > Very few have suggested that he wasn't executed on the orders of
> > Edward IV, who was even prepared to execute his own brother,
supported
> > by his right hand man: Richard!
>
> If Henry VI wasn't so feeble and sickly I would think he was most
defnitely
> executed. But since he wasn't exactly the most healthiest person,
there's
> that little question of "what if he did collapse and die?" I'm
leaning more
> towards Edward ordering his death though. Was Richard involved?
Maybe. Did he
> support it? Almost certainly
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{

I think, given the immense coincidence in the timing of Henry's
death, judicial murder must be the likeliest explanation. Edward of
course must surely have ordered it, but how many others were in the
know or approved we canot know. It has been argued, by Kendall et al,
that Richad as Constable would have taken the order to the Tower, but
I cannot see this any more than, if Richard killed the Princes he
would have had to get his Constable, Buckingham, to do the same. This
was not an execution but secret murder.
As regards the bleeding however, I do think this is a red herring.
Edward would not have been foolish enough to have Henry killed by any
means that would show when he was on puiblic display. And if I read
an earlier message correctly it would seem that such bleeding was a
common effect of the embalming process used at that time. Since only
the upper classes were embalmed, however, it would have been a shock
to the average punter.
Where that leaves richard?? Well, he seems not to have been around at
the time, whatever Warkworth had to say about it. He did have Henry's
body translated from Chertsey to Edward's royal mausoleum at Windsor.
Whether that was to atone in some way, to make himself popular with
Henry worshippers (he was credited with a large number of mircales by
this time), to perversely court danger by reviving a Lancastrian
cult, orin the nicest possible way to make Henry's body less
accessible to pilgrims (would it have done? anyone know?), well you
takes your pick.

And if Willison would like to respond, could he pretty please
restrain himself from making digs about ricardians when facts fail
him?>

Marie
>
>

First, in answer to Marie, I've received quite a few digs myself, as
did Tim & I could list them... No one swept to my defence, as over
an earlier altercation over the gay Edward 2..

I don't think Ricardian is clearly defined. Richard was what he was.
If he upset some standards of morality, the same acts mayhave been
seen as 'moral' by others! Lorraine correctly says there are
different views about Richard. Personally, I can admire say his
courage, but think him a bit over the top & pompous about morality.

if Richard killed the Princes he
> would have had to get his Constable, Buckingham, to do the same.
This> was not an execution but secret murder.

One man's murder is another man's execution, just as Osama Bin Laden
is one man's terrorist & another man's freedom fighter.


> As regards the bleeding however, I do think this is a red herring.
> Edward would not have been foolish enough to have Henry killed by
any
> means that would show when he was on puiblic display. And if I read
> an earlier message correctly it would seem that such bleeding was a
> common effect of the embalming process used at that time.

Edward IV had just returned from the Field of Tewkesbury where a lot
of Lancastrians were left openly bleeding including those dragged out
of Sanctuary (Edward was a hard man!) Did he really care about Henry
6 bleeding in public? We are stuck with the fact that most
historians, apart from those who make very tenuous claims to sanitise
Richard, believe that Edward knocked the Lancastrian line on the head,
just as Richard would've loved to have done with Tudor. The
exhumation of Henry 6 indicated BLOOD!!!

Richard supported Edward at Tewkesbury & wasn't squeemish about
killing/executing/murdering, which ever word you want to use, others.

He may've had some conscience about Henry 6, hence the removal to the
more prestigious Windsor. I hope it did Henry some good (g.) More
says Richard was a man of conscience about the princes & perhaps found
his collaboration with Edward against Henry unsavoury or he was
playing the 'I'm better than you' morality card?
>

That's what 99.9% of people have believed. The exhumated! Matted
blood!

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/03 7:13:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > Very few have suggested that he wasn't executed on the orders of
> > Edward IV, who was even prepared to execute his own brother,
supported
> > by his right hand man: Richard!
>
> If Henry VI wasn't so feeble and sickly I would think he was most
defnitely
> executed. But since he wasn't exactly the most healthiest person,
there's
> that little question of "what if he did collapse and die?" I'm
leaning more
> towards Edward ordering his death though. Was Richard involved?
Maybe. Did he
> support it? Almost certainly
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

willison200105/03/2003 20:12willison2001@...

> for the people who lived through the late 15th century &
> were terrorised by the threat of execution/murder it was a ghastly
> tragedy.
"terrorised" is a silly word to use for the 15th century, especially as it
is a very modern word and means something very different to us than it did
to the people say of the French Revolution. It is not a word the middle ages
would have understood at all.
Was there a "threat" of execution? Only in as there was such a threat in the
USA of say the 1960s. You kill someone, you are found out, you get tried in
public, and killed by the state.
People went to the executions with the family for a day out. They took a
picnic. It was a source of entertainment as well as a warning as to what
might happen if they comitted a crime. There was nothing of the "ghastly" or
"tragic" about it, and "terror" was an unknown concept.

Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?

This is a legal requirement is it not ?

David
Redcar

It was clear from the press conference that the research team, more
specifically the archaeologists, received the correct permissions to search
for human remains and have them reburied, after time given for examination
and research, in the nearest consecrated ground, which is Leicester
Cathedral. This decision was made, as several people have now said, before
the dig went ahead.

Karen

From: charliechan82w <suhbyungdoh@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:53:01 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Exhumation






Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the
body/bones and remove them to another place ?

This is a legal requirement is it not ?

David
Redcar

Someone gave you this information yesterday, did they not, David?



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:05
Subject: Re: Exhumation

 

It was clear from the press conference that the research team, more
specifically the archaeologists, received the correct permissions to search
for human remains and have them reburied, after time given for examination
and research, in the nearest consecrated ground, which is Leicester
Cathedral. This decision was made, as several people have now said, before
the dig went ahead.

Karen

From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:53:01 -0000
To: >
Subject: Exhumation

Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the
body/bones and remove them to another place ?

This is a legal requirement is it not ?

David
Redcar

Did you read the answers to your previous, identical post?

----- Original Message -----
From: charliechan82w
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:53 AM
Subject: Exhumation



Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?

This is a legal requirement is it not ?

David
Redcar

"Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?

This is a legal requirement is it not ?

David
Redcar"
 
and I'm told (by an archaeologist so he should know), that exhumation orders are now issued by the Dept of Justice not the Home Office...

"charliechan82w" wrote:
>
> Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?
>
> This is a legal requirement is it not ?
>
> David
> Redcar
>
Carol responds:

David, I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, but maybe this statement will help:

"The exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, which the university obtained before the excavation, confirms the remains will be buried at Leicester Cathedral."

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Skeleton-Leicester-car-park-confirmed/story-18050559-detail/story.html#ixzz2K8lxc9lq

At any rate, the Leicestershire team included professional archaeologists, who, of course, would know and fulfill all legal requirements before beginning the dig. Don't you think that the British government would have prevented the dig if it failed to meet the legal requirements?

Assuming that you are genuinely interested in Richard and the Leicester dig, you'll find loads of information at the official website, http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/leicester

I recommend this site, along with the official Richard III Society site at http://www.richardiii.net/

The branch websites, including the American branch at http://www.r3.org/ also contain interesting and useful information.

Carol

I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: Exhumation

 

"charliechan82w" wrote:
>
> Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?
>
> This is a legal requirement is it not ?
>
> David
> Redcar
>
Carol responds:

David, I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, but maybe this statement will help:

"The exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, which the university obtained before the excavation, confirms the remains will be buried at Leicester Cathedral."

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Skeleton-Leicester-car-park-confirmed/story-18050559-detail/story.html#ixzz2K8lxc9lq

At any rate, the Leicestershire team included professional archaeologists, who, of course, would know and fulfill all legal requirements before beginning the dig. Don't you think that the British government would have prevented the dig if it failed to meet the legal requirements?

Assuming that you are genuinely interested in Richard and the Leicester dig, you'll find loads of information at the official website, http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/leicester

I recommend this site, along with the official Richard III Society site at http://www.richardiii.net/

The branch websites, including the American branch at http://www.r3.org/ also contain interesting and useful information.

Carol

Did anyone else think what a massive coincidence it was that Richard lay under the letter 'R' that was painted on the ground...Philippa said that as she walked over that spot she felt cold and knew that was where Richard lay...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: Exhumation
>
>  
>
> "charliechan82w" wrote:
> >
> > Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?
> >
> > This is a legal requirement is it not ?
> >
> > David
> > Redcar
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> David, I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, but maybe this statement will help:
>
> "The exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, which the university obtained before the excavation, confirms the remains will be buried at Leicester Cathedral."
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Skeleton-Leicester-car-park-confirmed/story-18050559-detail/story.html#ixzz2K8lxc9lq
>
> At any rate, the Leicestershire team included professional archaeologists, who, of course, would know and fulfill all legal requirements before beginning the dig. Don't you think that the British government would have prevented the dig if it failed to meet the legal requirements?
>
> Assuming that you are genuinely interested in Richard and the Leicester dig, you'll find loads of information at the official website, http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/leicester
>
> I recommend this site, along with the official Richard III Society site at http://www.richardiii.net/
>
> The branch websites, including the American branch at http://www.r3.org/ also contain interesting and useful information.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

I did not notice that, but what serendipity!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Did anyone else think what a massive coincidence it was that Richard lay under the letter 'R' that was painted on the ground...Philippa said that as she walked over that spot she felt cold and knew that was where Richard lay...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: Exhumation
>
> ý
>
> "charliechan82w" wrote:
> >
> > Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?
> >
> > This is a legal requirement is it not ?
> >
> > David
> > Redcar
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> David, I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, but maybe this statement will help:
>
> "The exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, which the university obtained before the excavation, confirms the remains will be buried at Leicester Cathedral."
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Skeleton-Leicester-car-park-confirmed/story-18050559-detail/story.html#ixzz2K8lxc9lq
>
> At any rate, the Leicestershire team included professional archaeologists, who, of course, would know and fulfill all legal requirements before beginning the dig. Don't you think that the British government would have prevented the dig if it failed to meet the legal requirements?
>
> Assuming that you are genuinely interested in Richard and the Leicester dig, you'll find loads of information at the official website, http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/leicester
>
> I recommend this site, along with the official Richard III Society site at http://www.richardiii.net/
>
> The branch websites, including the American branch at http://www.r3.org/ also contain interesting and useful information.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Love that word...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I did not notice that, but what serendipity!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Did anyone else think what a massive coincidence it was that Richard lay under the letter 'R' that was painted on the ground...Philippa said that as she walked over that spot she felt cold and knew that was where Richard lay...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:27
> > Subject: Re: Exhumation
> >
> > Â
> >
> > "charliechan82w" wrote:
> > >
> > > Did the society and or others obtain a Home Office certificate to exhume the body/bones and remove them to another place ?
> > >
> > > This is a legal requirement is it not ?
> > >
> > > David
> > > Redcar
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > David, I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, but maybe this statement will help:
> >
> > "The exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, which the university obtained before the excavation, confirms the remains will be buried at Leicester Cathedral."
> >
> > Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Skeleton-Leicester-car-park-confirmed/story-18050559-detail/story.html#ixzz2K8lxc9lq
> >
> > At any rate, the Leicestershire team included professional archaeologists, who, of course, would know and fulfill all legal requirements before beginning the dig. Don't you think that the British government would have prevented the dig if it failed to meet the legal requirements?
> >
> > Assuming that you are genuinely interested in Richard and the Leicester dig, you'll find loads of information at the official website, http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/leicester
> >
> > I recommend this site, along with the official Richard III Society site at http://www.richardiii.net/
> >
> > The branch websites, including the American branch at http://www.r3.org/ also contain interesting and useful information.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean
>
Carol responds:

Good to know. But hopefully my links will be useful to our new members, which was the main reason I posted them.

Carol

I marked it, too, Carol. Handy to have for future reference. Sometime I
should get around to organizing the messages. Right now, like most people, I
imagine, I'm having trouble trying to keep up with the message traffic - and
I'm not getting my papers written. (unhappy smiley face)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Exhumation





Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think Neil has dealt Carol - if you see what I mean
>
Carol responds:

Good to know. But hopefully my links will be useful to our new members,
which was the main reason I posted them.

Carol