Duke Humphrey's death

Carol responds:

Doesn't square very well with the official announcement that he died from "pure displeasure and melancholy," though. (Anyone know the exact source of that statement? A quick Google search didn't yield it.)

I'm wondering how that statement compares with the official announcement of the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester back in 1447. Does anyone know?
 
****
 
"pure displeasure and melancholy"     is quoted in:  Hammond, P. W. and Anne F. Sutton.  Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field.  London:  Constable, 1985, p. 52.  I don't have their primary source at hand, but I can look it up for you, if you'd like.
 
I can also offer an alternative to Google.  It's:  http://www.duckduckgo.com.  I searched "pure displeasure and melancholy" and got several hits.  The one that looks best to me is:  http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-may-21-1471-edward-iv-and-his-forces.html.  Susan is the US RIII Society's non-fiction librarian.
 
The official version of Duke Humphrey's death was that he died of a "stroke."  He died in the custody of Henry VI's officials, who had his body displayed at the abbey church of Bury St. Edmunds.  Duke Humphrey's loyal household members buried him quietly at St. Alban's.  His funeral did not reflect his rank or his contributions to scholarship.  His will wasn't honored, and Oxford University took legal action to get possession of books he'd promised to give it.  My sources for this are:  Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.  London:  Archibald Constable and Co., 1907, pp. 291-294; Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI.  Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., 2004, pp. 496- 498.
 
All of above justifies doubts about the accuracy of the official version of his death, IMO.
I also believe that Duke Humphrey's death justified Richard, duke of York's opposition to Henry VI's favorites between 1447-1460.  I don't know what Richard, duke of Gloucester thought about Duke Humphrey's death.  But I think it's reasonable to say that Gloucester was aware of the dangers a protector faced and considered them between April-July 1483.
 
Marion

"pure displeasure and melancholy" is from The Arrivall, the official Yorkist chronicle of Edward's recapture of his throne.
Marie

--- In , marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Doesn't square very well with the official announcement that he died from "pure displeasure and melancholy," though. (Anyone know the exact source of that statement? A quick Google search didn't yield it.)
>
> I'm wondering how that statement compares with the official announcement of the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester back in 1447. Does anyone know?
>  
> ****
>  
> "pure displeasure and melancholy"     is quoted in:  Hammond, P. W. and Anne F. Sutton.  Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field.  London:  Constable, 1985, p. 52.  I don't have their primary source at hand, but I can look it up for you, if you'd like.
>  
> I can also offer an alternative to Google.  It's:  http://www.duckduckgo.com.  I searched "pure displeasure and melancholy" and got several hits.  The one that looks best to me is:  http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-may-21-1471-edward-iv-and-his-forces.html.  Susan is the US RIII Society's non-fiction librarian.
>  
> The official version of Duke Humphrey's death was that he died of a "stroke."  He died in the custody of Henry VI's officials, who had his body displayed at the abbey church of Bury St. Edmunds.  Duke Humphrey's loyal household members buried him quietly at St. Alban's.  His funeral did not reflect his rank or his contributions to scholarship.  His will wasn't honored, and Oxford University took legal action to get possession of books he'd promised to give it.  My sources for this are:  Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.  London:  Archibald Constable and Co., 1907, pp. 291-294; Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI.  Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., 2004, pp. 496- 498.
>  
> All of above justifies doubts about the accuracy of the official version of his death, IMO.
> I also believe that Duke Humphrey's death justified Richard, duke of York's opposition to Henry VI's favorites between 1447-1460.  I don't know what Richard, duke of Gloucester thought about Duke Humphrey's death.  But I think it's reasonable to say that Gloucester was aware of the dangers a protector faced and considered them between April-July 1483.
>  
> Marion
>
>
>

The diagnosis of " Heart Attack" is a relatively modern diagnosis










Medical knowledge in the Middle Ages must have appeared to have stood still.
While the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians had pushed forward medical
knowledge, after the demise of these civilizations, the momentum started by
these people tended to stagnate and it did not develop at the same pace
until the Seventeenth/Eighteenth Centuries. In Britain, as an example, most
things linked to the Romans was destroyed - villas were covered up as the
Ancient Britons believed that they contained ghosts and evil spirits. With
this approach, it is not surprising that anything medical linked to the
Romans fell into disuse in Britain.



By the 14th Century, universities had developed in Western Europe that could
be classed as medical schools where students could study under a master
physician. The University of Montpelier was one such university. Dissections
of human bodies were carried out in these universities so anyone wanting to
study medicine in the Middle Ages was not totally ignorant of facts about
the human body. Public debates were also encouraged about medical issues and
it is known that some medical schools encouraged students to actually
challenge the ideas of Galen and Hippocrates. As a result of this refusal to
take what Galen and Hippocrates had stated at face value some progress was
made in the medical world during this time.



However, medicine became steeped in superstition and the Roman Catholic
Church effectively dominated what direction the medical world took. Any
views different from the established Roman Catholic Church view could veer
towards heresy with the punishments that entailed. Therefore, when the Roman
Catholic Church stated that illnesses were punishments from God and that
those who were ill were so because they were sinners, few argued otherwise.



Medical practitioners were also still heavily influenced by Galen 1000 years
after his death. Mondino's book on the anatomy, "Anathomia", still relied on
observations made by Galen and other Greek writers of medicine.




http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_in_the_middle_ages.htm



http://his.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/haopdf/57/SignsandSenses.pdf





George









From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Duke Humphrey's death





"pure displeasure and melancholy" is from The Arrivall, the official Yorkist
chronicle of Edward's recapture of his throne.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion davis
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Doesn't square very well with the official announcement that he died from
"pure displeasure and melancholy," though. (Anyone know the exact source of
that statement? A quick Google search didn't yield it.)
>
> I'm wondering how that statement compares with the official announcement
of the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester back in 1447. Does anyone know?
>
> ****
>
> "pure displeasure and melancholy" is quoted in: Hammond, P. W. and
Anne F. Sutton. Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field. London:
Constable, 1985, p. 52. I don't have their primary source at hand, but I
can look it up for you, if you'd like.
>
> I can also offer an alternative to Google. It's:
http://www.duckduckgo.com I searched "pure displeasure and melancholy" and
got several hits. The one that looks best to me is:
http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-may-21-1471-edward-iv-and-
his-forces.html. Susan is the US RIII Society's non-fiction librarian.
>
> The official version of Duke Humphrey's death was that he died of a
"stroke." He died in the custody of Henry VI's officials, who had his body
displayed at the abbey church of Bury St. Edmunds. Duke Humphrey's loyal
household members buried him quietly at St. Alban's. His funeral did not
reflect his rank or his contributions to scholarship. His will wasn't
honored, and Oxford University took legal action to get possession of books
he'd promised to give it. My sources for this are: Vickers, K.H.,
Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. London: Archibald Constable and Co., 1907,
pp. 291-294; Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI. Phoenix Mill,
Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., 2004, pp. 496- 498.
>
> All of above justifies doubts about the accuracy of the official version
of his death, IMO.
> I also believe that Duke Humphrey's death justified Richard, duke of
York's opposition to Henry VI's favorites between 1447-1460. I don't know
what Richard, duke of Gloucester thought about Duke Humphrey's death. But I
think it's reasonable to say that Gloucester was aware of the dangers a
protector faced and considered them between April-July 1483.
>
> Marion
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
>
> Doesn't square very well with the official announcement that he died from "pure displeasure and melancholy," though. (Anyone know the exact source of that statement? A quick Google search didn't yield it.)

Marion responded:

> "pure displeasure and melancholy" is quoted in: Hammond, P. W. and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field. London: Constable, 1985, p. 52. I don't have their primary source at hand, but I can look it up for you, if you'd like.

Carol again:

Thanks, but I found the source. It's "Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV, in England and the Finall Recouerye of His Kingdomes from Henry VI. A.D. M.CCCC.LXXI"--"The Arrivall" for short. I couldn't think of the shortened title to look it up. here' the page with the quotation: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/arrival5.html

Carol earlier:
> I'm wondering how that statement compares with the official announcement of the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester back in 1447. Does anyone know?

Marion responded:  
> The official version of Duke Humphrey's death was that he died of a "stroke."  He died in the custody of Henry VI's officials, who had his body displayed at the abbey church of Bury St. Edmunds.  Duke Humphrey's loyal household members buried him quietly at St. Alban's.  His funeral did not reflect his rank or his contributions to scholarship.  His will wasn't honored, and Oxford University took legal action to get possession of books he'd promised to give it.  My sources for this are:  Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.  London:  Archibald Constable and Co., 1907, pp. 291-294; Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI.  Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., 2004, pp. 496- 498.
>  
> All of above justifies doubts about the accuracy of the official version of his death, IMO.

Carol responds:

I agree. Interesting, isn't it, that almost all historians suspect the truth of the official version of Henry VI's death, noting how convenient it was for Edward IV (and, too often, making Richard Henry's killer, but that's a different matter), and yet they accept the story that Humphrey died (equally conveniently and after three days in prison) of a stroke. Could we be seeing a pro-Lancastrian bias among historians here?

Marion wrote:
> I also believe that Duke Humphrey's death justified Richard, duke of York's opposition to Henry VI's favorites between 1447-1460.  I don't know what Richard, duke of Gloucester thought about Duke Humphrey's death.  But I think it's reasonable to say that Gloucester was aware of the dangers a protector faced and considered them between April-July 1483.

Carol responds:

I agree. I don't see how he could have avoided seeing the dangers faced a protector, and the coincidence in titles most likely did not escape him.

Carol