Seventh Son

Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for all the
information sent.

Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if anyone has
read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what anyone
thought (suppose the historical content is limited or somewhat biased)

--- In , "marion_cheatham"
<marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for all the
> information sent.
>
> Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if anyone has
> read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what anyone
> thought (suppose the historical content is limited or somewhat
biased)


Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does sound dodgy -
he was the eighth son.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "marion_cheatham"
> <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for all
the
> > information sent.
> >
> > Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if anyone has
> > read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what
anyone
> > thought (suppose the historical content is limited or somewhat
> biased)
>
>
> Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does sound
dodgy -
> he was the eighth son.

Glad you knew that, Marie...I was counting on my fingers and my
memory and though one is trustworthy the other isn't.

I've wondered why so many sons went by before the Duke of York
bestowed his name on one.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "marion_cheatham"
> > <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > > Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for all
> the
> > > information sent.
> > >
> > > Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if anyone
has
> > > read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what
> anyone
> > > thought (suppose the historical content is limited or somewhat
> > biased)
> >
> >
> > Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does sound
> dodgy -
> > he was the eighth son.
>
> Glad you knew that, Marie...I was counting on my fingers and my
> memory and though one is trustworthy the other isn't.
>
> I've wondered why so many sons went by before the Duke of York
> bestowed his name on one.

I've always supposed because Richard was also the name of the Duke of
Yorek's father, the Earl of Cambridge, who had been executed for
treason against the Lancastrian regime. By 1452 York was right out of
favour anyway, in enforced exile at Fotheringhay so he probably
thought 'What the hell?'

The book isn't up to much. For what I think of it in detail, read my
review at www.baronage.co.uk.

Ann

Chuckle: I can just picture York, "Not another brat! What the hell,
I'll call him Richard! That'll get up the king's royal nose!" It
does seem odd that he used virtually unknown names (within the royal
family and its offshoots) like George first, but it does seem to
have been a Neville family name too. Having said that, so was
Richard. Cecily's brother and nephew were both Richards (Salisbury
and Warwick). And avoiding confusion is unlikely to be the reason.
Anyhow, I have never heard of this book either.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In
, "marion_cheatham"
> > > <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > > > Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for
all
> > the
> > > > information sent.
> > > >
> > > > Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if
anyone
> has
> > > > read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what
> > anyone
> > > > thought (suppose the historical content is limited or
somewhat
> > > biased)
> > >
> > >
> > > Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does sound
> > dodgy -
> > > he was the eighth son.
> >
> > Glad you knew that, Marie...I was counting on my fingers and my
> > memory and though one is trustworthy the other isn't.
> >
> > I've wondered why so many sons went by before the Duke of York
> > bestowed his name on one.
>
> I've always supposed because Richard was also the name of the Duke
of
> Yorek's father, the Earl of Cambridge, who had been executed for
> treason against the Lancastrian regime. By 1452 York was right out
of
> favour anyway, in enforced exile at Fotheringhay so he probably
> thought 'What the hell?'

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:

>I thank the good Duke of York for at least not duplicating names
among his children. Again I'm thinking of John Talbot's two sons,
John and John, who confused Shakespeare, and John Paston and his sons
John and John...at least the Talbots were half-brothers separated by
a decade or so in age, but the Pastons were full brothers born only
a few years apart. And wasn't there the Earl of Beaumont who lost
both sons in a campaign in France, so he had to go home and find
another wife and had two more sons, to whom he gave the same names as
the first two? I was mightily confused by the pairs of Beaumont sons
and the strange timing of events in their lives, not realizing they
were four people, not two.

I wonder if that could be the case with our Arthur
Wayte/Lucy/Plantagenet of the oddly-timed life milestones..if Edward
IV did indeed have an illegitimate son named Arthur by Elizabeth
Wayte Lucy, for in 1462-64, but he is not the same man who stars in
the Lisle Letters. Something could have become of the real Arthur in
one way or another, perhaps in childhood. Decades later Henry VII
may have needed to show that he was a good kindly monarch who was not
neither killing off every Plantagenet he could find, including royal
bastards, halfwits, and old ladies, perish the thought, and to prove
it why, here is Arthur Plantagenet, Edward IV's by-blow, for whom the
king just arranged a nice marriage...never mind that he looks 20
years younger than he would have to be..it's just a trick of the
light. In other words, Arthur might have been a ringer, a royal in-
joke. That crest of Arthur Plantagenet, the leopard changing its
spots as it steps through some reeds, intrigues me.


Chuckle: I can just picture York, "Not another brat! What the hell,
> I'll call him Richard! That'll get up the king's royal nose!" It
> does seem odd that he used virtually unknown names (within the
royal
> family and its offshoots) like George first, but it does seem to
> have been a Neville family name too. Having said that, so was
> Richard. Cecily's brother and nephew were both Richards (Salisbury
> and Warwick). And avoiding confusion is unlikely to be the reason.
> Anyhow, I have never heard of this book either.
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > --- In
> , "marion_cheatham"
> > > > <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and for
> all
> > > the
> > > > > information sent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if
> anyone
> > has
> > > > > read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered what
> > > anyone
> > > > > thought (suppose the historical content is limited or
> somewhat
> > > > biased)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does sound
> > > dodgy -
> > > > he was the eighth son.
> > >
> > > Glad you knew that, Marie...I was counting on my fingers and my
> > > memory and though one is trustworthy the other isn't.
> > >
> > > I've wondered why so many sons went by before the Duke of York
> > > bestowed his name on one.
> >
> > I've always supposed because Richard was also the name of the
Duke
> of
> > Yorek's father, the Earl of Cambridge, who had been executed for
> > treason against the Lancastrian regime. By 1452 York was right
out
> of
> > favour anyway, in enforced exile at Fotheringhay so he probably
> > thought 'What the hell?'

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> >I thank the good Duke of York for at least not duplicating names
> among his children. Again I'm thinking of John Talbot's two sons,
> John and John, who confused Shakespeare, and John Paston and his
sons
> John and John...at least the Talbots were half-brothers separated
by
> a decade or so in age, but the Pastons were full brothers born
only
> a few years apart. And wasn't there the Earl of Beaumont who lost
> both sons in a campaign in France, so he had to go home and find
> another wife and had two more sons, to whom he gave the same names
as
> the first two? I was mightily confused by the pairs of Beaumont
sons
> and the strange timing of events in their lives, not realizing they
> were four people, not two.
>
> I wonder if that could be the case with our Arthur
> Wayte/Lucy/Plantagenet of the oddly-timed life milestones..if
Edward
> IV did indeed have an illegitimate son named Arthur by Elizabeth
> Wayte Lucy, for in 1462-64, but he is not the same man who stars in
> the Lisle Letters. Something could have become of the real Arthur
in
> one way or another, perhaps in childhood. Decades later Henry VII
> may have needed to show that he was a good kindly monarch who was
not
> neither killing off every Plantagenet he could find, including
royal
> bastards, halfwits, and old ladies, perish the thought, and to
prove
> it why, here is Arthur Plantagenet, Edward IV's by-blow, for whom
the
> king just arranged a nice marriage...never mind that he looks 20
> years younger than he would have to be..it's just a trick of the
> light. In other words, Arthur might have been a ringer, a royal in-
> joke. That crest of Arthur Plantagenet, the leopard changing its
> spots as it steps through some reeds, intrigues me.
>
>
> Chuckle: I can just picture York, "Not another brat! What the hell,
> > I'll call him Richard! That'll get up the king's royal nose!" It
> > does seem odd that he used virtually unknown names (within the
> royal
> > family and its offshoots) like George first, but it does seem to
> > have been a Neville family name too. Having said that, so was
> > Richard. Cecily's brother and nephew were both Richards
(Salisbury
> > and Warwick). And avoiding confusion is unlikely to be the
reason.
> > Anyhow, I have never heard of this book either.
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , oregonkaty
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In
, "mariewalsh2003"
> > > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In
> > , "marion_cheatham"
> > > > > <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Many thanks to all who welcomed me as a new member and
for
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > information sent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have recently heard of the above novel and wondered if
> > anyone
> > > has
> > > > > > read it. I have read conflicting reviews and wondered
what
> > > > anyone
> > > > > > thought (suppose the historical content is limited or
> > somewhat
> > > > > biased)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Haven't seen it. Is it about Richard III? If so it does
sound
> > > > dodgy -
> > > > > he was the eighth son.
> > > >
> > > > Glad you knew that, Marie...I was counting on my fingers and
my
> > > > memory and though one is trustworthy the other isn't.
> > > >
> > > > I've wondered why so many sons went by before the Duke of
York
> > > > bestowed his name on one.
> > >
> > > I've always supposed because Richard was also the name of the
> Duke
> > of
> > > Yorek's father, the Earl of Cambridge, who had been executed
for
> > > treason against the Lancastrian regime. By 1452 York was right
> out
> > of
> > > favour anyway, in enforced exile at Fotheringhay so he probably
> > > thought 'What the hell?'

Oops..I put my stuff at the top of the post was replying instead of
at the bottom, which may cause some confusion...the post previous to
this one was mine, not brunhild's. Soory about that.

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:47:34 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
I'll call him Richard! That'll get up the king's royal nose!" It
does seem odd that he used virtually unknown names (within the
royal family and its offshoots) like George first, but it does seem to
have been a Neville family name too.

also patron saint of England George? Not think of that?
Paul

> also patron saint of England George? Not think of that?
> Paul

Naturally, but it was not a popular name within the family or at all
elsewhere regardless of the Saint's heroism. It may have been
specifically to reflect the military situation around the time of
his birth, but i that case one might expect the name to have had a
wider popularity in general especially after 1337. Since it did not
I think the connection is irrelevant.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> > also patron saint of England George? Not think of that?
> > Paul
>
> Naturally, but it was not a popular name within the family or at
all
> elsewhere regardless of the Saint's heroism. It may have been
> specifically to reflect the military situation around the time of
> his birth, but i that case one might expect the name to have had a
> wider popularity in general especially after 1337. Since it did not
> I think the connection is irrelevant.

I don't. The reason the name was not so common was that st George's
popularity was a relatively recent phenomenon, but it was fast
becoming common, simply because St George was so much in vogue. It
was really St Edward the Confessor rather tnan St George who had been
regarded as England's patron saint up till then. St George was of
course connected with the Order of the Garter. The late medieval St
George slaying the dragon doesn't bear much resemblance to the
historical St George, and I've read that the dragon-slaying story can
only be traced back to Voragine's Golden Legend (14C).
I find it interesting that Voragine's version of the St George & the
dragon story is almost identical in detail to an Irish story of the
Ulster hero Cuchulainn. Loomis has shown that the stories of
Cuchulainn travelled to Britain, and that he appears in Welsh
medieval texts as Gwri Gwallt Avwyn, or even Gwrgi. Gwri Gwallt Avwyn
then becomes Sir Gawain. . . But, I wonder, did the Gwrrgi version
lead to confusion with St George?
The historicity of St George may not have been that important in the
15th century. Hughes argues that he was as much as anything an
archetype with alchemical associations.
So, I wonder, did the Duke of York (and others in Ireland) also
believe that Cuchulainn was Ulster's own version of St George? After
all, York's badge as Earl of Ulster was a black dragon - which he
proudly used on his standard when he was in Ireland. Could this be
why he named his Irish-born son George???????? Or was it, conversely,
to link him with his parents' home country despite his Irish birth?
Either way, I think St George would have been the intended namesake.
Whilst it is true that Cecily had a brother George, he was not
exactly in the picture in Dublin in 1449.

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:35:18 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Since it did not
> I think the connection is irrelevant.
so where else did it come from?
Any idea? No point slapping my suggestion down as irrelevant without
replacing it with another.
Paul

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:01:54 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> So, I wonder, did the Duke of York (and others in Ireland) also
> believe that Cuchulainn was Ulster's own version of St George? After
> all, York's badge as Earl of Ulster was a black dragon - which he
> proudly used on his standard when he was in Ireland. Could this be
> why he named his Irish-born son George???????? Or was it, conversely,
> to link him with his parents' home country despite his Irish birth?
> Either way, I think St George would have been the intended namesake.
> Whilst it is true that Cecily had a brother George, he was not
> exactly in the picture in Dublin in 1449.

good point Marie and thanks for that. I hadn¹t heard of the Irish legend
though I knew there must have been some connection with Ireland.
Interesting indeed.
Paul

> > Since it did not
> > I think the connection is irrelevant.
> so where else did it come from?
> Any idea? No point slapping my suggestion down as irrelevant without
> replacing it with another.
> Paul


I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George simply
because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware, George was
an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century Georges
that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was presumably
named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd Earl, was a
close friend of Clarence's.

Ann

>
> I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George simply
> because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware, George
was
> an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century Georges
> that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
> connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was presumably
> named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd Earl, was
a
> close friend of Clarence's.
>
> Ann

Which is what I am inclined to think too, but it still doesn't solve
the mystery of why Richard was not used till late as it's a
Plantagenet and Neville name. I am wondering if the name Edward is a
reminder of their royal descent from Edward III, specifically. The
choice of Edmund is also Planatagenet, but rare. I don't know if it
is a Neville name, I haven't seen it among them.

>
> I don't. The reason the name was not so common was that st
George's
> popularity was a relatively recent phenomenon, but it was fast
> becoming common, simply because St George was so much in vogue. It
> was really St Edward the Confessor rather tnan St George who had
been
> regarded as England's patron saint up till then. St George was of
> course connected with the Order of the Garter. The late medieval
St
> George slaying the dragon doesn't bear much resemblance to the
> historical St George, and I've read that the dragon-slaying story
can
> only be traced back to Voragine's Golden Legend (14C).

Perhaps you misunderstood me, Marie. I didn't say the cult was
unpopular, I said the name was. I believe the cult to have had
something of a revival in the 14-15C, partly because of the
successes in the Hundred Years war, and conversely, in reaction to
the declining English fortunes in it. I am actually surprised that
the name did not have a wider popularity.



> The historicity of St George may not have been that important in
the
> 15th century.

I don't think the period cared much about historicity really. They
accepted so much that we now know as legend, such as the origins of
Stonehenge, and Arthurian round tables. They don't seem to have
worried much about mixing truth and fiction: the sources on Richard
himself bear adequate witness to that, even if there was often an
ulterior motive.


> So, I wonder, did the Duke of York (and others in Ireland) also
> believe that Cuchulainn was Ulster's own version of St George?
After
> all, York's badge as Earl of Ulster was a black dragon - which he
> proudly used on his standard when he was in Ireland. Could this be
> why he named his Irish-born son George???????? Or was it,
conversely,
> to link him with his parents' home country despite his Irish
birth?
> Either way, I think St George would have been the intended
namesake.

That's perfectly feasible as another way of viewing the saint from
the war idea. Richard of York had strong links with Ireland, took
refuge there, and these remained quite strong into the reign of
Henry VII when Yorkist supporters/pretenders sought help there. He
could have been trying to honour them in some way.

> Whilst it is true that Cecily had a brother George, he was not
> exactly in the picture in Dublin in 1449.

Wasn't George the one with the dodgy mental state anyway?

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George simply
> > because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware, George
> was
> > an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century
Georges
> > that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
> > connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was
presumably
> > named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd Earl, was
> a
> > close friend of Clarence's.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Which is what I am inclined to think too, but it still doesn't
solve
> the mystery of why Richard was not used till late as it's a
> Plantagenet and Neville name. I am wondering if the name Edward is
a
> reminder of their royal descent from Edward III, specifically. The
> choice of Edmund is also Planatagenet, but rare. I don't know if it
> is a Neville name, I haven't seen it among them.

I personally feel it's a mistake to get too hung up on the maternal
Neville connection. The impression I generally get is that the
paternnal side counted much more in the naming stakes, and in any
case, Salisbury and Warwick didn't become allies of the Duke of York
until the early 1450s, once Warwick started having problems with
Somerset over his wife's Beauchamp inheritance. Some of the Cecily's
sisters, such as the Duchess of Buckingham and the Countess of
Northumberland, never brought their husbands over at all. Also,
George was not as rare a name as you make out. To take recent
messages, for instance: Edward IV's chief alchemist friend was George
ripley, and the note with the alchemical symbols (which Jonathan
Hughes is looking at at pres.) was written by George Cely.

I also think it's a mistake to see just one possible namesake. A well-
chosen name could allude to various nacestors, living relatives,
possible patrons, and also harness the guardianship of a favoured
saint.So why Richard wasn't used was quite simple. Even if York had
said 'it's just for my brother-in-law' (who was no friend of his
anyway until after 1450) no one would see it in those simple terms.

To take the children in order:

Anne was definitely named for York's mother, Ann Mortimer
Henry for Henry VI
Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at Agincourt
and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
Mortimer
Elizabeth for York's paternal grandmother Isabel of Castile, and for
his only sister Isabel Lady Bourchier ('Elizabeth' was more up-to-
date than 'Isabel')
Margaret for the new queen
William might have been for Cecily's brother Lord Fauconberg, but one
would have to ask - if York was so interested in the Nevilles, why
didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph? It could as easily have
been for st William of York
John. This is where the Neville theory first falls down. I
personally feel it only looks as good as it did because Cecily had so
many siblings and there were so few names in circulation. Again, I
suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory of
York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous year and
whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult of St
George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very, given it
was only Lord Latimer).
Thomas. Cecily had no brother Thomas. Probably for St Thomas a Becket.
Richard. Chiefly for York's father, but now useful in that it would
flatter his new Neville allies.
Ursula. I don't think anyone can argue this was for anyone other than
St Ursula of Brittany. Given that St Ursula was very famously a
virgin, I wonder if this one would have been destined for a nunnery.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't. The reason the name was not so common was that st
> George's
> > popularity was a relatively recent phenomenon, but it was fast
> > becoming common, simply because St George was so much in vogue.
It
> > was really St Edward the Confessor rather tnan St George who had
> been
> > regarded as England's patron saint up till then. St George was of
> > course connected with the Order of the Garter. The late medieval
> St
> > George slaying the dragon doesn't bear much resemblance to the
> > historical St George, and I've read that the dragon-slaying story
> can
> > only be traced back to Voragine's Golden Legend (14C).
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood me, Marie. I didn't say the cult was
> unpopular, I said the name was.

I know. I was trying to explain that the popularity of the name was
growing, following on from the popularity of the cult.

I believe the cult to have had
> something of a revival in the 14-15C, partly because of the
> successes in the Hundred Years war, and conversely, in reaction to
> the declining English fortunes in it. I am actually surprised that
> the name did not have a wider popularity.

The popularity of the name grew as fast as can be expected in a
society where most names were handed down.
>
>
>
> > The historicity of St George may not have been that important in
> the
> > 15th century.
>
> I don't think the period cared much about historicity really. They
> accepted so much that we now know as legend, such as the origins of
> Stonehenge, and Arthurian round tables. They don't seem to have
> worried much about mixing truth and fiction: the sources on Richard
> himself bear adequate witness to that, even if there was often an
> ulterior motive.
>
>
> > So, I wonder, did the Duke of York (and others in Ireland) also
> > believe that Cuchulainn was Ulster's own version of St George?
> After
> > all, York's badge as Earl of Ulster was a black dragon - which he
> > proudly used on his standard when he was in Ireland. Could this
be
> > why he named his Irish-born son George???????? Or was it,
> conversely,
> > to link him with his parents' home country despite his Irish
> birth?
> > Either way, I think St George would have been the intended
> namesake.
>
> That's perfectly feasible as another way of viewing the saint from
> the war idea. Richard of York had strong links with Ireland, took
> refuge there, and these remained quite strong into the reign of
> Henry VII when Yorkist supporters/pretenders sought help there. He
> could have been trying to honour them in some way.
>
> > Whilst it is true that Cecily had a brother George, he was not
> > exactly in the picture in Dublin in 1449.
>
> Wasn't George the one with the dodgy mental state anyway?

I think so. The point is George was born in Ireland so when I sussed
the Ulster link to the St George & the dragon story it seemed to make
sense.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George
simply
> > > because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware,
George
> > was
> > > an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century
> Georges
> > > that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
> > > connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was
> presumably
> > > named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd Earl,
was
> > a
> > > close friend of Clarence's.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > Which is what I am inclined to think too, but it still doesn't
> solve
> > the mystery of why Richard was not used till late as it's a
> > Plantagenet and Neville name. I am wondering if the name Edward
is
> a
> > reminder of their royal descent from Edward III, specifically.
The
> > choice of Edmund is also Planatagenet, but rare. I don't know if
it
> > is a Neville name, I haven't seen it among them.
>
> I personally feel it's a mistake to get too hung up on the maternal
> Neville connection. The impression I generally get is that the
> paternnal side counted much more in the naming stakes, and in any
> case, Salisbury and Warwick didn't become allies of the Duke of
York
> until the early 1450s, once Warwick started having problems with
> Somerset over his wife's Beauchamp inheritance. Some of the
Cecily's
> sisters, such as the Duchess of Buckingham and the Countess of
> Northumberland, never brought their husbands over at all. Also,
> George was not as rare a name as you make out. To take recent
> messages, for instance: Edward IV's chief alchemist friend was
George
> ripley, and the note with the alchemical symbols (which Jonathan
> Hughes is looking at at pres.) was written by George Cely.
>
> I also think it's a mistake to see just one possible namesake. A
well-
> chosen name could allude to various nacestors, living relatives,
> possible patrons, and also harness the guardianship of a favoured
> saint.So why Richard wasn't used was quite simple. Even if York had
> said 'it's just for my brother-in-law' (who was no friend of his
> anyway until after 1450) no one would see it in those simple terms.
>
> To take the children in order:
>
> Anne was definitely named for York's mother, Ann Mortimer
> Henry for Henry VI
> Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at Agincourt
> and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
> Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
> Mortimer
> Elizabeth for York's paternal grandmother Isabel of Castile, and
for
> his only sister Isabel Lady Bourchier ('Elizabeth' was more up-to-
> date than 'Isabel')
> Margaret for the new queen
> William might have been for Cecily's brother Lord Fauconberg, but
one
> would have to ask - if York was so interested in the Nevilles, why
> didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph? It could as easily have
> been for st William of York
> John. This is where the Neville theory first falls down. I
> personally feel it only looks as good as it did because Cecily had
so
> many siblings and there were so few names in circulation. Again, I
> suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
> explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory of
> York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous year
and
> whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
> George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult of St
> George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
> Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very, given it
> was only Lord Latimer).
> Thomas. Cecily had no brother Thomas. Probably for St Thomas a
Becket.
> Richard. Chiefly for York's father, but now useful in that it would
> flatter his new Neville allies.
> Ursula. I don't think anyone can argue this was for anyone other
than
> St Ursula of Brittany. Given that St Ursula was very famously a
> virgin, I wonder if this one would have been destined for a nunnery.


Isn't there also a connection with St Ursula and difficulties in
childbirth or fertility? Cecily apparently had had some sort of
problems, since Thomas, John, William and Ursula herself appear to
have been died in infancy and there may have been some difficulty
with Richard's birth. More describes a footling delivery, which
could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or arm...brachial
palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> More describes a footling delivery, which
> could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or arm...brachial
> palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.

More? You are kidding using him as a source aren¹t you. And there was NO
problem with either his shoulder or his arm.
Infant mortality was a common thing in the period, so one should not be
surprised that not all Richard¹s siblings survived infancy.
Paul

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George
> simply
> > > > because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware,
> George
> > > was
> > > > an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century
> > Georges
> > > > that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
> > > > connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was
> > presumably
> > > > named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd Earl,
> was
> > > a
> > > > close friend of Clarence's.
> > > >
> > > > Ann
> > >
> > > Which is what I am inclined to think too, but it still doesn't
> > solve
> > > the mystery of why Richard was not used till late as it's a
> > > Plantagenet and Neville name. I am wondering if the name Edward
> is
> > a
> > > reminder of their royal descent from Edward III, specifically.
> The
> > > choice of Edmund is also Planatagenet, but rare. I don't know
if
> it
> > > is a Neville name, I haven't seen it among them.
> >
> > I personally feel it's a mistake to get too hung up on the
maternal
> > Neville connection. The impression I generally get is that the
> > paternnal side counted much more in the naming stakes, and in any
> > case, Salisbury and Warwick didn't become allies of the Duke of
> York
> > until the early 1450s, once Warwick started having problems with
> > Somerset over his wife's Beauchamp inheritance. Some of the
> Cecily's
> > sisters, such as the Duchess of Buckingham and the Countess of
> > Northumberland, never brought their husbands over at all. Also,
> > George was not as rare a name as you make out. To take recent
> > messages, for instance: Edward IV's chief alchemist friend was
> George
> > ripley, and the note with the alchemical symbols (which Jonathan
> > Hughes is looking at at pres.) was written by George Cely.
> >
> > I also think it's a mistake to see just one possible namesake. A
> well-
> > chosen name could allude to various nacestors, living relatives,
> > possible patrons, and also harness the guardianship of a favoured
> > saint.So why Richard wasn't used was quite simple. Even if York
had
> > said 'it's just for my brother-in-law' (who was no friend of his
> > anyway until after 1450) no one would see it in those simple
terms.
> >
> > To take the children in order:
> >
> > Anne was definitely named for York's mother, Ann Mortimer
> > Henry for Henry VI
> > Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at
Agincourt
> > and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
> > Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
> > Mortimer
> > Elizabeth for York's paternal grandmother Isabel of Castile, and
> for
> > his only sister Isabel Lady Bourchier ('Elizabeth' was more up-
to-
> > date than 'Isabel')
> > Margaret for the new queen
> > William might have been for Cecily's brother Lord Fauconberg, but
> one
> > would have to ask - if York was so interested in the Nevilles,
why
> > didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph? It could as easily
have
> > been for st William of York
> > John. This is where the Neville theory first falls down. I
> > personally feel it only looks as good as it did because Cecily
had
> so
> > many siblings and there were so few names in circulation. Again,
I
> > suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
> > explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory of
> > York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous year
> and
> > whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
> > George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult of
St
> > George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
> > Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very, given
it
> > was only Lord Latimer).
> > Thomas. Cecily had no brother Thomas. Probably for St Thomas a
> Becket.
> > Richard. Chiefly for York's father, but now useful in that it
would
> > flatter his new Neville allies.
> > Ursula. I don't think anyone can argue this was for anyone other
> than
> > St Ursula of Brittany. Given that St Ursula was very famously a
> > virgin, I wonder if this one would have been destined for a
nunnery.
>
>
> Isn't there also a connection with St Ursula and difficulties in
> childbirth or fertility? Cecily apparently had had some sort of
> problems, since Thomas, John, William and Ursula herself appear to
> have been died in infancy and there may have been some difficulty
> with Richard's birth. More describes a footling delivery, which
> could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or arm...brachial
> palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.

I don't know. I've never heard about St Ursula in connection with
childbirth - she was a virgin martyr; would be interested to know
more. From what I have read, St Margaret of Antioch was a favourite
for childbirth (she was swallowed by the Devil in the form of a
dragon and cut her way out). Infant deaths were usual, but it is true
that Cecily had more than one might expect. She apparently also wrote
to Margaret of Anjou while she was pregnant with Edward of Lancaster
(ie less than a year after Richard's birth) complaining of her own
gynaecological problems. Unfortunately, I've never seen a copy or
transcript of the letter, but I suspect Richard may have been a
breech birth. Didn't Rous say that as well? He could perhaps have
learned this from the Countess of Warwick, who he says loved
attending ladies during childbirth. It was, of course, the very thing
that caused the Kaiser's withered arm, but I seem to remember reading
that the doctors actually cut off some of his shoulder to get him
out. I'm not sure medieval midwives went in for such intervention, or
even if forceps would have been available - I've read conflicting
accounts of when they came in. Also, Kaiser Bill was a first baby,
which is always much more difficult. My twin brother was a breech,
but was not a difficult birth at all because he was not too big and
was not a first baby.
Just because Richard was breech, of course, doesn't mean that other
siblings would have been. I notice that Cecily did very well with the
first half dozen (losing only one, and that probably not early on),
then lost four of the next 6. They were also much more spaced out
after George, although Cecily was still young, and she had the last
at only 36. I wonder if perhaps her doctors had said she needed to
avoid constant childbearing. Odd, isn't it, that Richard, with this
supposedly difficult delivery, was one of only two of that second
half dozen children to survive?


By the by, it's occurred to me that John could have been named for
Cecily's maternal grandfather John of Gaunt. Which would show just
how eager he was to seem to be a good boy.

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> More describes a footling delivery, which
> could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or arm...brachial
> palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.

and again re the sainted More
Charles Ross, scarcely to be described as a
Richard-worshipper himself, states that "Any assessment of the very
flattering view of Edward IV presented by More must take into account the
remarkable influence on More of his classical models, emphasised by
Professor Sylvester...especially the contrast between the 'good' Augustus
and the 'bad' Tiberius, which is reproduced, and in part paraphrased, by
More in his juxtaposition of Edward and Richard of Gloucester. Even the
innocence of the Woodville's in More's narrative owes much to Tacitus's
picture of Augustus's sorrowing widow and her children." (Edward IV, pp
434-435.)

Or to put it plain terms, More was not only writing fiction, he was
plagurising someone else's fiction.

> > > Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at
> Agincourt
> > > and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
> > > Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
> > > Mortimer

Wasn't Edmund Mortimer unpopular? I seem to have avague recollection
of there being some problem with him that made him someone no-one
much wanted to be linked with, but I could be wrong. I am forgetfulk
these days.


> > > didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph?

Ralph is again not a particularly popular name and might be a
reminder of the illegitimate Joan Beaufort his wife, and their
mother.

> I
> > > suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
> > > explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory
of
> > > York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous
year
> > and
> > > whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
> > > George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult
of
> St
> > > George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
> > > Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very,
given
> it
> > > was only Lord Latimer).

There certainly are Georges in circulation but not widely and
nowhere near as many as one might expect if it reflected a popular
cult.



> By the by, it's occurred to me that John could have been named for
> Cecily's maternal grandfather John of Gaunt. Which would show just
> how eager he was to seem to be a good boy.

With him being illegitimate I wonder whether the choice may not have
been down to the mother here? Or have you moved from R's son John to
a diferent one?
Incidentally I read somewhere that Perkin Warbeck is a unique (to
that author's knowledge - sadly have forgotten who!) first name not
recorded anywhere else, and that Warbeck was also a very rare name
indeed (and inaccruraely recorded). Makes you wonder.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> > > > Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at
> > Agincourt
> > > > and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
> > > > Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
> > > > Mortimer
>
> Wasn't Edmund Mortimer unpopular? I seem to have avague
recollection
> of there being some problem with him that made him someone no-one
> much wanted to be linked with, but I could be wrong. I am
forgetfulk
> these days.
There were, of course, several Edmund Mortimers. Anyway I got it
wrong: York's grandfather was Roger Mortimer. Edmund was the name of
his Mortimer uncle, great-uncle and great-grandfather. Uncle Edmund
was sent to Ireland like York himself, to get rid of him, and he
quickly died of plague in Dublin. Great-uncle Edmund made common
cause with Owen Glendower, married his daughter and died during the
siege of Harlech. Great-grandfather Edmund died 1381 was the husband
of Philippa of Clarence. Actually, I think since Edmind Mortimer
wasn't a grandfather, Edmund was probably for Edmud of Langley.

>
>
> > > > didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph?
>
> Ralph is again not a particularly popular name and might be a
> reminder of the illegitimate Joan Beaufort his wife, and their
> mother.

The Beauforts weren't illegitimate any more, and nobody minded having
Beaufort connections. I think the problem with Ralph, if there was
one, is that the name was continued by the senior Neville line, who
were at odds with Joan Beaufort's issue.
>
> > I
> > > > suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
> > > > explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory
> of
> > > > York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous
> year
> > > and
> > > > whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
> > > > George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult
> of
> > St
> > > > George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
> > > > Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very,
> given
> > it
> > > > was only Lord Latimer).
>
> There certainly are Georges in circulation but not widely and
> nowhere near as many as one might expect if it reflected a popular
> cult.

Now you do seem to be saying the cult of St George was not popular.
Surely not! And I think I dealt with why the name didn't take on
faster.

>
>
>
> > By the by, it's occurred to me that John could have been named
for
> > Cecily's maternal grandfather John of Gaunt. Which would show
just
> > how eager he was to seem to be a good boy.
>
> With him being illegitimate I wonder whether the choice may not
have
> been down to the mother here? Or have you moved from R's son John
to
> a diferent one?
> Incidentally I read somewhere that Perkin Warbeck is a unique (to
> that author's knowledge - sadly have forgotten who!) first name not
> recorded anywhere else, and that Warbeck was also a very rare name
> indeed (and inaccruraely recorded). Makes you wonder.

Are you maybe thinking of Lambert Simnel? Lambert is not recorded
anywhere else in England as a first name (it was a surname), so his
was probably a made-up name alluding to Edward IV's mistress,
Elizabeth Lambert Shore. Perkin was a common pet form of Peter, hence
the not so very rare surname Perkins. It certainly makes you wonder
whether that particular feigned boy was ever involved in the 1487
rebellion.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >
> > More describes a footling delivery, which
> > could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or arm...brachial
> > palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.
>
> and again re the sainted More
> Charles Ross, scarcely to be described as a
> Richard-worshipper himself, states that "Any assessment of the very
> flattering view of Edward IV presented by More must take into
account the
> remarkable influence on More of his classical models, emphasised by
> Professor Sylvester...especially the contrast between the 'good'
Augustus
> and the 'bad' Tiberius, which is reproduced, and in part
paraphrased, by
> More in his juxtaposition of Edward and Richard of Gloucester. Even
the
> innocence of the Woodville's in More's narrative owes much to
Tacitus's
> picture of Augustus's sorrowing widow and her children." (Edward
IV, pp
> 434-435.)
>
> Or to put it plain terms, More was not only writing fiction, he was
> plagurising someone else's fiction.

Hmmm. You think that's where More got his rather florid details of
Richard's birth? I don't think I've ever read anything about Tiberius
being a breech baby.

More's description is over the top, as typical for him, but there
could be a grain of authentic information embedded in it. For the
sake of the argument, let's examine it. He says Richard was born
feet first, was covered with hair, and had teeth. (What, no horns or
forked tail?) A footling presentation is a rare variation of a
breech, and breech presentations themselves are -- fortunately --
pretty rare, occurring in 5 or 10% of natural deliveries. A breech
birth is dangerous to both mother and infant for a number of reasons
and in days before modern medicine it carried a high mortality rate,
especially for the baby. For both mother and baby to survive a
footling birth would be so remarkable that I expect that word of the
event would have spread outside the immediate family. More clearly
got a lot of his material from John Morton, and I don't think it is
unreasonable that such a well-connected person could have heard about
the Duchess of York's unusual delivery.

A small baby would be more likely to make it through such a
delivery. Premature babies are sometimes born covered with a "pelt"
of fine hair called lanugo.

I'm not sure what to make of the teeth. I was born with two teeth, s
a matter of fact, but no fur.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm inclined to think that Clarence was christened George
> > simply
> > > > > because it was a Neville family name. As far as I'm aware,
> > George
> > > > was
> > > > > an unusual name until much later, and all the 15th century
> > > Georges
> > > > > that I'm aware of were either Nevilles or had close Neville
> > > > > connections. George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, was
> > > presumably
> > > > > named after Clarence himself, since his father, the 3rd
Earl,
> > was
> > > > a
> > > > > close friend of Clarence's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ann
> > > >
> > > > Which is what I am inclined to think too, but it still
doesn't
> > > solve
> > > > the mystery of why Richard was not used till late as it's a
> > > > Plantagenet and Neville name. I am wondering if the name
Edward
> > is
> > > a
> > > > reminder of their royal descent from Edward III,
specifically.
> > The
> > > > choice of Edmund is also Planatagenet, but rare. I don't know
> if
> > it
> > > > is a Neville name, I haven't seen it among them.
> > >
> > > I personally feel it's a mistake to get too hung up on the
> maternal
> > > Neville connection. The impression I generally get is that the
> > > paternnal side counted much more in the naming stakes, and in
any
> > > case, Salisbury and Warwick didn't become allies of the Duke of
> > York
> > > until the early 1450s, once Warwick started having problems
with
> > > Somerset over his wife's Beauchamp inheritance. Some of the
> > Cecily's
> > > sisters, such as the Duchess of Buckingham and the Countess of
> > > Northumberland, never brought their husbands over at all. Also,
> > > George was not as rare a name as you make out. To take recent
> > > messages, for instance: Edward IV's chief alchemist friend was
> > George
> > > ripley, and the note with the alchemical symbols (which
Jonathan
> > > Hughes is looking at at pres.) was written by George Cely.
> > >
> > > I also think it's a mistake to see just one possible namesake.
A
> > well-
> > > chosen name could allude to various nacestors, living
relatives,
> > > possible patrons, and also harness the guardianship of a
favoured
> > > saint.So why Richard wasn't used was quite simple. Even if York
> had
> > > said 'it's just for my brother-in-law' (who was no friend of
his
> > > anyway until after 1450) no one would see it in those simple
> terms.
> > >
> > > To take the children in order:
> > >
> > > Anne was definitely named for York's mother, Ann Mortimer
> > > Henry for Henry VI
> > > Edward for York's paternal uncle, who died heroically at
> Agincourt
> > > and from whom he inherited the duchy of York
> > > Edmund for York's two grandfathers Edmund of Langley & Edmund
> > > Mortimer
> > > Elizabeth for York's paternal grandmother Isabel of Castile,
and
> > for
> > > his only sister Isabel Lady Bourchier ('Elizabeth' was more up-
> to-
> > > date than 'Isabel')
> > > Margaret for the new queen
> > > William might have been for Cecily's brother Lord Fauconberg,
but
> > one
> > > would have to ask - if York was so interested in the Nevilles,
> why
> > > didn't he start with Cecily's father Ralph? It could as easily
> have
> > > been for st William of York
> > > John. This is where the Neville theory first falls down. I
> > > personally feel it only looks as good as it did because Cecily
> had
> > so
> > > many siblings and there were so few names in circulation.
Again,
> I
> > > suggest a devotion to St John the Baptist is a more likely
> > > explanation than any current namesake. Perhaps also in memory
of
> > > York's friend the Duke of Exeter, who had died the previous
year
> > and
> > > whose son was married to York's little daughter Anne.
> > > George. Gets a name fast coming into vogue ALONGSIDE the cult
of
> St
> > > George: I rest my case. Happens also to be the name of one of
> > > Cecily's siblings, so that was a bit useful (but not very,
given
> it
> > > was only Lord Latimer).
> > > Thomas. Cecily had no brother Thomas. Probably for St Thomas a
> > Becket.
> > > Richard. Chiefly for York's father, but now useful in that it
> would
> > > flatter his new Neville allies.
> > > Ursula. I don't think anyone can argue this was for anyone
other
> > than
> > > St Ursula of Brittany. Given that St Ursula was very famously a
> > > virgin, I wonder if this one would have been destined for a
> nunnery.
> >
> >
> > Isn't there also a connection with St Ursula and difficulties in
> > childbirth or fertility? Cecily apparently had had some sort of
> > problems, since Thomas, John, William and Ursula herself appear
to
> > have been died in infancy and there may have been some difficulty
> > with Richard's birth. More describes a footling delivery, which
> > could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or
arm...brachial
> > palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.
>
> I don't know. I've never heard about St Ursula in connection with
> childbirth - she was a virgin martyr; would be interested to know
> more. From what I have read, St Margaret of Antioch was a favourite
> for childbirth (she was swallowed by the Devil in the form of a
> dragon and cut her way out). Infant deaths were usual, but it is
true
> that Cecily had more than one might expect. She apparently also
wrote
> to Margaret of Anjou while she was pregnant with Edward of
Lancaster
> (ie less than a year after Richard's birth) complaining of her own
> gynaecological problems. Unfortunately, I've never seen a copy or
> transcript of the letter, but I suspect Richard may have been a
> breech birth. Didn't Rous say that as well? He could perhaps have
> learned this from the Countess of Warwick, who he says loved
> attending ladies during childbirth. It was, of course, the very
thing
> that caused the Kaiser's withered arm, but I seem to remember
reading
> that the doctors actually cut off some of his shoulder to get him
> out. I'm not sure medieval midwives went in for such intervention,
or
> even if forceps would have been available - I've read conflicting
> accounts of when they came in. Also, Kaiser Bill was a first baby,
> which is always much more difficult. My twin brother was a breech,
> but was not a difficult birth at all because he was not too big and
> was not a first baby.
> Just because Richard was breech, of course, doesn't mean that other
> siblings would have been. I notice that Cecily did very well with
the
> first half dozen (losing only one, and that probably not early on),
> then lost four of the next 6. They were also much more spaced out
> after George, although Cecily was still young, and she had the last
> at only 36. I wonder if perhaps her doctors had said she needed to
> avoid constant childbearing. Odd, isn't it, that Richard, with this
> supposedly difficult delivery, was one of only two of that second
> half dozen children to survive?
>
>
> By the by, it's occurred to me that John could have been named for
> Cecily's maternal grandfather John of Gaunt. Which would show just
> how eager he was to seem to be a good boy.

Something else occurs to me, re Cecily's lack of luck with her last
six children. Four died young, quite possibly in infancy, Richard
allegedy was a dificult birth, and only George seems to have been
unscathed. This, as you said, after doing very well with the first
six, including Edward and Edmund who were born less han a year
apart. She lived for many years after her childbearing career ended,
so the short-lived infants can't be attributed to some chronic
illness or general poor health on her part. What comes to my mind is
the possibility that like so many women, she could have developed
fibroid tumors of the uterus. Sometimes women with fibroids can
conceive but can't carry the babies to term...they are miscarried or
born prematurely. We know Cecily's babies were born alive because
they received names, but they could have been weak premies who didn't
survive long. For what it's worth, in a separate post today I
speculated upon Richard being a fairly mature premie, based on More's
description. (I realize that you can't take anything More says as
gospel but he does parrot some information that sounds like it came
from someone who was in the know.)

> The Beauforts weren't illegitimate any more, and nobody minded
having
> Beaufort connections.

I know they weren't - but a royal line might still have felt it
inferior and therefore not one to bring to the fore.

I think the problem with Ralph, if there was
> one, is that the name was continued by the senior Neville line,
who


Very true.

> >



>
> Now you do seem to be saying the cult of St George was not
popular.
> Surely not! And I think I dealt with why the name didn't take on
> faster.

No still not suggesting that Marie. Just puzzling over why the name
was not widely popular when the cult was.
>


>
> Are you maybe thinking of Lambert Simnel? Lambert is not recorded
> anywhere else in England as a first name (it was a surname), so
his
> was probably a made-up name alluding to Edward IV's mistress,
> Elizabeth Lambert Shore. Perkin was a common pet form of Peter,
hence
> the not so very rare surname Perkins. It certainly makes you
wonder
> whether that particular feigned boy was ever involved in the 1487
> rebellion.

Put that one down to a bad day! That and hormones play havoc with my
memory these days.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > >
> > > More describes a footling delivery, which
> > > could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or
arm...brachial
> > > palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.
> >
> > and again re the sainted More
> > Charles Ross, scarcely to be described as a
> > Richard-worshipper himself, states that "Any assessment of the
very
> > flattering view of Edward IV presented by More must take into
> account the
> > remarkable influence on More of his classical models, emphasised
by
> > Professor Sylvester...especially the contrast between the 'good'
> Augustus
> > and the 'bad' Tiberius, which is reproduced, and in part
> paraphrased, by
> > More in his juxtaposition of Edward and Richard of Gloucester.
Even
> the
> > innocence of the Woodville's in More's narrative owes much to
> Tacitus's
> > picture of Augustus's sorrowing widow and her children." (Edward
> IV, pp
> > 434-435.)
> >
> > Or to put it plain terms, More was not only writing fiction, he
was
> > plagurising someone else's fiction.
>
> Hmmm. You think that's where More got his rather florid details of
> Richard's birth? I don't think I've ever read anything about
Tiberius
> being a breech baby.
>
> More's description is over the top, as typical for him, but there
> could be a grain of authentic information embedded in it. For the
> sake of the argument, let's examine it. He says Richard was born
> feet first, was covered with hair, and had teeth. (What, no horns
or
> forked tail?) A footling presentation is a rare variation of a
> breech, and breech presentations themselves are -- fortunately --
> pretty rare, occurring in 5 or 10% of natural deliveries. A
breech
> birth is dangerous to both mother and infant for a number of
reasons
> and in days before modern medicine it carried a high mortality
rate,
> especially for the baby. For both mother and baby to survive a
> footling birth would be so remarkable that I expect that word of
the
> event would have spread outside the immediate family. More clearly
> got a lot of his material from John Morton, and I don't think it is
> unreasonable that such a well-connected person could have heard
about
> the Duchess of York's unusual delivery.
>
> A small baby would be more likely to make it through such a
> delivery. Premature babies are sometimes born covered with
a "pelt"
> of fine hair called lanugo.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of the teeth. I was born with two teeth,
s
> a matter of fact, but no fur.


Doesn't this all come from Rous rather than More? I think he said
Richard had hair down to his shoulders, which wouldn't be a reference
to lanugo. Both my children were born with a good head of hair - it's
not uncommon. My son's was thick, about 3 inches long, stuck up on
end and was two-toned, being black with blond tips. I don't know what
Rous would have made of that. The point is, none of this indicates a
villain in the making.
I don't know about survival of breech birth being
exactly "remarkable", though breech deliveries are difficult. With
twins one is commonly a breech (that's the only way they can fit
together into the womb). I have another friend who has a twin
brother. He was a breech, and had one foot hanging down all night
(sorry, male listers), but was eventually delivered fine, no damage
to mother or baby. This would be in 1950s when ceasarians were quite
possible, but in those days breech births were not considered risky
enough in themselves to warrant automatic caesarian. It is said that
midwives & doctors have less experience of breech births now which,
combined with a culture less accepting of risks, means that breech
deliveries tend not to be attempted now. I even get the impression
they're not as keen to try hard to turn the baby in the womb before
labour as they were, as there are risks there and - so what, we can
do a caesar anyway. Or perhaps the've lost the knack there too. It's
not always the case that advances in medical technology go hand-in-
hand with advances in midwifery skill. It can have the opposite
effect, and I think, looking at the genealogies full of large
medieval families and widows seeing out several husbands, we should
perhaps give medieval midwives their due.
I get the impression (I may be wrong) that the breech delivery
explanation for the withered arm usually makes reference to Kaiser
Bill. However, as I said before, I'm not sure the analogy holds
anyway as the Kaiser was cut around by Queen Victoria's doctor sent
out in a desperate last-minute attempt to save the mother's life (her
stoical Prussian doctors not being too concerned to intervene,
apparently); this was also a first child, whereas Cecily's body had
seen out 10 already and would have been well stretched.
In any case, I don't think Richard can have had a withered or palsied
arm or he would not have been able to used that axe on horseback.
So, in short, I'm prepared to accept that he may have been a footling
baby, but not that it left him with a withered arm.
Michael Jones suggests that a lot of the stories of Richard's
deformities came as a result of his mangled dead body being put on
display.

PS. Re the child John, named for John of Gaunt. Yes, I was referring
back to my message about York's children. I meant York & Cecily's son
John (born 7 November 1448, died in infancy). Also, when I said the
children were more spread out after George, I meant after Thomas,
born 1450. There was a 2-yr gap then, for the first time, before
Richard. Is this why Rous says Richard lay two years in his mother's
womb?

Marie

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:14:19 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Richard
> allegedy was a dificult birth,
where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so much time
discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an age ago?
ŒRichard liveth yet¹ and that could be a simple comment on childbirth in the
Middle Ages. It doesn¹t indicate anything else.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:14:19 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >


> > Richard
> > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so much
time
> discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an age
ago?

On Oregonkaty's behalf:
Rationalisations of the difficult birth & deformity are still being
minted so do need addressing. Also, I'm afraid we ladies do like to
discuss yucky things like childbirth. I've just checked and she is
correct on saying that the feet froward thing came from More - in
which case I don't think it is worthy of consideration.
> ŒRichard liveth yet¹ and that could be a simple comment on
childbirth in the
> Middle Ages. It doesn¹t indicate anything else.

I don't even think it's quite that. Just that he's one of the brood
still alive as opposed to one of those that have died.

However, there are other sources perhaps less doubtful than More (I
can't think where More got that women's tittle-tattle about the
delivery anyway - not off a website. Sounds like something he might
have heard discussed within his own family, probably regarding a
close connection of same).
One source is Cecily's letter of 1453, which turned up a few years
ago, apparently complaining of continuing problems relating to
childbearing. I would love to have a transcript if anyone has seen
one. The other is Rous. Even though the tone of his descriptions of
Richard changed radically after Henry VII came to the throne, he may
have had some inside knowledge, perhaps, as I say, from the Countess
of Warwick, which he just presented in a negative way. He says, for
instance, that Richard was born with nasty old Scorpio on the
ascendant, which I think checks out with his stated time of birth (a
trait I share with Richard, incidentally, so I won't be easily
persuaded that it's an obvious sign of villainy, still less the
Antichrist as Rous inferred). He says Richard lay 2 years in his
mother's womb, which though biologically impossible seems to be
cobbled up from the fact that Cecily's last baby had come 2 years
earlier (the first time she had had such a gap between children). And
he says Richard was born with teeth & hair down to his shoulders.
Both of which are possible and don't indicate any abnormality. I'm
sure if Richard had been a breech birth requiring an epesiotomy (as
More claims - hope I've spelled that right) Rous would have known of
that too. So I think that can be disposed of. None of the things Rous
does mention would have made for a difficult delivery, and my own
suspicion is that Cecily's problems may have been due to the sheer
number of children she had borne without sufficient recovery time in
between - ie a slack or even prolapsed womb. Very common at one time.
I think this could have caused repeated premature deliveries, which
may account for the large number of the later children who died.
Whether a prem baby is likely to have been born with a full head of
hair and teeth, I don't know. I suspect not. My pair of punks were
both 'overdue'.
I personally feel that the attempt to rationalise the later claims of
deformity by referring to later hostile references to Richard's birth
is a blind alley, but it does like everything else need to be
discussed. But, perhaps, as a woman, I do find Cecily's obstetric
history interesting, little enough though we know about it. Perhaps
you'll have to humour us.
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > > >
> > > > More describes a footling delivery, which
> > > > could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or
> arm...brachial
> > > > palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.
> > >
> > > and again re the sainted More
> > > Charles Ross, scarcely to be described as a
> > > Richard-worshipper himself, states that "Any assessment of the
> very
> > > flattering view of Edward IV presented by More must take into
> > account the
> > > remarkable influence on More of his classical models,
emphasised
> by
> > > Professor Sylvester...especially the contrast between
the 'good'
> > Augustus
> > > and the 'bad' Tiberius, which is reproduced, and in part
> > paraphrased, by
> > > More in his juxtaposition of Edward and Richard of Gloucester.
> Even
> > the
> > > innocence of the Woodville's in More's narrative owes much to
> > Tacitus's
> > > picture of Augustus's sorrowing widow and her children."
(Edward
> > IV, pp
> > > 434-435.)
> > >
> > > Or to put it plain terms, More was not only writing fiction, he
> was
> > > plagurising someone else's fiction.
> >
> > Hmmm. You think that's where More got his rather florid details
of
> > Richard's birth? I don't think I've ever read anything about
> Tiberius
> > being a breech baby.
> >
> > More's description is over the top, as typical for him, but there
> > could be a grain of authentic information embedded in it. For the
> > sake of the argument, let's examine it. He says Richard was born
> > feet first, was covered with hair, and had teeth. (What, no
horns
> or
> > forked tail?) A footling presentation is a rare variation of a
> > breech, and breech presentations themselves are -- fortunately --
> > pretty rare, occurring in 5 or 10% of natural deliveries. A
> breech
> > birth is dangerous to both mother and infant for a number of
> reasons
> > and in days before modern medicine it carried a high mortality
> rate,
> > especially for the baby. For both mother and baby to survive a
> > footling birth would be so remarkable that I expect that word of
> the
> > event would have spread outside the immediate family. More
clearly
> > got a lot of his material from John Morton, and I don't think it
is
> > unreasonable that such a well-connected person could have heard
> about
> > the Duchess of York's unusual delivery.
> >
> > A small baby would be more likely to make it through such a
> > delivery. Premature babies are sometimes born covered with
> a "pelt"
> > of fine hair called lanugo.
> >
> > I'm not sure what to make of the teeth. I was born with two
teeth,
> s
> > a matter of fact, but no fur.
>
>
> Doesn't this all come from Rous rather than More? I think he said
> Richard had hair down to his shoulders, which wouldn't be a
reference
> to lanugo. Both my children were born with a good head of hair -
it's
> not uncommon. My son's was thick, about 3 inches long, stuck up on
> end and was two-toned, being black with blond tips. I don't know
what
> Rous would have made of that. The point is, none of this indicates
a
> villain in the making.
> I don't know about survival of breech birth being
> exactly "remarkable", though breech deliveries are difficult. With
> twins one is commonly a breech (that's the only way they can fit
> together into the womb). I have another friend who has a twin
> brother. He was a breech, and had one foot hanging down all night
> (sorry, male listers), but was eventually delivered fine, no damage
> to mother or baby. This would be in 1950s when ceasarians were
quite
> possible, but in those days breech births were not considered risky
> enough in themselves to warrant automatic caesarian. It is said
that
> midwives & doctors have less experience of breech births now which,
> combined with a culture less accepting of risks, means that breech
> deliveries tend not to be attempted now. I even get the impression
> they're not as keen to try hard to turn the baby in the womb before
> labour as they were, as there are risks there and - so what, we can
> do a caesar anyway. Or perhaps the've lost the knack there too.
It's
> not always the case that advances in medical technology go hand-in-
> hand with advances in midwifery skill. It can have the opposite
> effect, and I think, looking at the genealogies full of large
> medieval families and widows seeing out several husbands, we should
> perhaps give medieval midwives their due.
> I get the impression (I may be wrong) that the breech delivery
> explanation for the withered arm usually makes reference to Kaiser
> Bill. However, as I said before, I'm not sure the analogy holds
> anyway as the Kaiser was cut around by Queen Victoria's doctor sent
> out in a desperate last-minute attempt to save the mother's life
(her
> stoical Prussian doctors not being too concerned to intervene,
> apparently); this was also a first child, whereas Cecily's body had
> seen out 10 already and would have been well stretched.
> In any case, I don't think Richard can have had a withered or
palsied
> arm or he would not have been able to used that axe on horseback.
> So, in short, I'm prepared to accept that he may have been a
footling
> baby, but not that it left him with a withered arm.
> Michael Jones suggests that a lot of the stories of Richard's
> deformities came as a result of his mangled dead body being put on
> display.
>
> PS. Re the child John, named for John of Gaunt. Yes, I was
referring
> back to my message about York's children. I meant York & Cecily's
son
> John (born 7 November 1448, died in infancy). Also, when I said the
> children were more spread out after George, I meant after Thomas,
> born 1450. There was a 2-yr gap then, for the first time, before
> Richard. Is this why Rous says Richard lay two years in his
mother's
> womb?
>
> Marie

I was thinking of deliveries in the era that Celcily was producing
children, when thigs were a great deal more haardous to mother and
infant.

I thought it was More who went on about Richard being born feet
first, with teeth and covered with hair. I'll see if I can look it up

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:09:06 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > > > >
> > > > > More describes a footling delivery, which
> > > > > could explain whatever it was about his shoulder or
> > arm...brachial
> > > > > palsy in a recognized complication of breech births.
> > > >
> > > > and again re the sainted More
> > > > Charles Ross, scarcely to be described as a
> > > > Richard-worshipper himself, states that "Any assessment of
the
> > very
> > > > flattering view of Edward IV presented by More must take into
> > > account the
> > > > remarkable influence on More of his classical models,
> emphasised
> > by
> > > > Professor Sylvester...especially the contrast between
> the 'good'
> > > Augustus
> > > > and the 'bad' Tiberius, which is reproduced, and in part
> > > paraphrased, by
> > > > More in his juxtaposition of Edward and Richard of
Gloucester.
> > Even
> > > the
> > > > innocence of the Woodville's in More's narrative owes much to
> > > Tacitus's
> > > > picture of Augustus's sorrowing widow and her children."
> (Edward
> > > IV, pp
> > > > 434-435.)
> > > >
> > > > Or to put it plain terms, More was not only writing fiction,
he
> > was
> > > > plagurising someone else's fiction.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. You think that's where More got his rather florid
details
> of
> > > Richard's birth? I don't think I've ever read anything about
> > Tiberius
> > > being a breech baby.
> > >
> > > More's description is over the top, as typical for him, but
there
> > > could be a grain of authentic information embedded in it. For
the
> > > sake of the argument, let's examine it. He says Richard was
born
> > > feet first, was covered with hair, and had teeth. (What, no
> horns
> > or
> > > forked tail?) A footling presentation is a rare variation of a
> > > breech, and breech presentations themselves are -- fortunately -
-
> > > pretty rare, occurring in 5 or 10% of natural deliveries. A
> > breech
> > > birth is dangerous to both mother and infant for a number of
> > reasons
> > > and in days before modern medicine it carried a high mortality
> > rate,
> > > especially for the baby. For both mother and baby to survive a
> > > footling birth would be so remarkable that I expect that word
of
> > the
> > > event would have spread outside the immediate family. More
> clearly
> > > got a lot of his material from John Morton, and I don't think
it
> is
> > > unreasonable that such a well-connected person could have heard
> > about
> > > the Duchess of York's unusual delivery.
> > >
> > > A small baby would be more likely to make it through such a
> > > delivery. Premature babies are sometimes born covered with
> > a "pelt"
> > > of fine hair called lanugo.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what to make of the teeth. I was born with two
> teeth,
> > s
> > > a matter of fact, but no fur.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't this all come from Rous rather than More? I think he said
> > Richard had hair down to his shoulders, which wouldn't be a
> reference
> > to lanugo. Both my children were born with a good head of hair -
> it's
> > not uncommon. My son's was thick, about 3 inches long, stuck up
on
> > end and was two-toned, being black with blond tips. I don't know
> what
> > Rous would have made of that. The point is, none of this
indicates
> a
> > villain in the making.
> > I don't know about survival of breech birth being
> > exactly "remarkable", though breech deliveries are difficult.
With
> > twins one is commonly a breech (that's the only way they can fit
> > together into the womb). I have another friend who has a twin
> > brother. He was a breech, and had one foot hanging down all night
> > (sorry, male listers), but was eventually delivered fine, no
damage
> > to mother or baby. This would be in 1950s when ceasarians were
> quite
> > possible, but in those days breech births were not considered
risky
> > enough in themselves to warrant automatic caesarian. It is said
> that
> > midwives & doctors have less experience of breech births now
which,
> > combined with a culture less accepting of risks, means that
breech
> > deliveries tend not to be attempted now. I even get the
impression
> > they're not as keen to try hard to turn the baby in the womb
before
> > labour as they were, as there are risks there and - so what, we
can
> > do a caesar anyway. Or perhaps the've lost the knack there too.
> It's
> > not always the case that advances in medical technology go hand-
in-
> > hand with advances in midwifery skill. It can have the opposite
> > effect, and I think, looking at the genealogies full of large
> > medieval families and widows seeing out several husbands, we
should
> > perhaps give medieval midwives their due.
> > I get the impression (I may be wrong) that the breech delivery
> > explanation for the withered arm usually makes reference to
Kaiser
> > Bill. However, as I said before, I'm not sure the analogy holds
> > anyway as the Kaiser was cut around by Queen Victoria's doctor
sent
> > out in a desperate last-minute attempt to save the mother's life
> (her
> > stoical Prussian doctors not being too concerned to intervene,
> > apparently); this was also a first child, whereas Cecily's body
had
> > seen out 10 already and would have been well stretched.
> > In any case, I don't think Richard can have had a withered or
> palsied
> > arm or he would not have been able to used that axe on horseback.
> > So, in short, I'm prepared to accept that he may have been a
> footling
> > baby, but not that it left him with a withered arm.
> > Michael Jones suggests that a lot of the stories of Richard's
> > deformities came as a result of his mangled dead body being put
on
> > display.
> >
> > PS. Re the child John, named for John of Gaunt. Yes, I was
> referring
> > back to my message about York's children. I meant York & Cecily's
> son
> > John (born 7 November 1448, died in infancy). Also, when I said
the
> > children were more spread out after George, I meant after Thomas,
> > born 1450. There was a 2-yr gap then, for the first time, before
> > Richard. Is this why Rous says Richard lay two years in his
> mother's
> > womb?
> >
> > Marie
>
> I was thinking of deliveries in the era that Celcily was producing
> children, when thigs were a great deal more haardous to mother and
> infant.

Well, was it? I'm not sure that the results were any worse than in
thew 19th century. We do tend to have a negative assumption about all
thinfs medieval. Certainly, as I have learned from listening to Tig
Lang, medieval surgeaons were pretty damn good.

>
> I thought it was More who went on about Richard being born feet
> first, with teeth and covered with hair. I'll see if I can look it
up

As I said to Paul, I looked up in Kendall. As far as I could see,
More was indeed responsible for the feet-first story, but it was Rous
who said he was born with teeth & hair (streaming down to his
shoulders, rather than covered in it). But since I don't have the
original texts to hand, I'd be grateful if you could look them up. I
must say, Rous taken on his own as I have him at pres. suggests to me
a full-term baby with no hint of difficulties with the delivery or
subsequent ill health or deformity. If he had inside knowledge and
doesn't mention a breech birth, then I suppose there wasn't one. The
only 'virtue' in More's story of same is the possible explanation it
gives of a withered arm Richard cannot possibly have had; he no doubt
put this in because it put Richard at odds with the natural order
from the day of his birth (or indeed, as he himself says, before it).

>
> Doesn't this all come from Rous rather than More? I think he said
> Richard had hair down to his shoulders, which wouldn't be a
reference
> to lanugo. Both my children were born with a good head of hair -
it's
> not uncommon. My son's was thick, about 3 inches long, stuck up on
> end and was two-toned, being black with blond tips. I don't know
what
> Rous would have made of that. The point is, none of this indicates
a


Rous did indeed write such things - in the second version of his
work, the first having no mention of any deformity or unusual birth
features, but instead wrote that Richard was small but well made. I
was also born wuith a lot of hair - and 10 weeks prem. It fell out
later and so did the 2nd lot. The third stayed, but interestingly
each of the 3 was a diferent colour - black, red then blonde! So any
perculaiarities of hair Richard may have been born with are pretty
tame really! (Not that I believe there was anything odd about it!)



> So, in short, I'm prepared to accept that he may have been a
footling
> baby, but not that it left him with a withered arm.
> Michael Jones suggests that a lot of the stories of Richard's
> deformities came as a result of his mangled dead body being put on
> display.

I suppose that's a possibility, but still not that likely if the
original source is Rous and Rous had previously seen Richard looking
quite normal - even if he saw the corpse, which we cannot know.
>
> PS. Re the child John, named for John of Gaunt. Yes, I was
referring
> back to my message about York's children. I meant York & Cecily's
son
> John (born 7 November 1448, died in infancy). Also, when I said
the
> children were more spread out after George, I meant after Thomas,
> born 1450. There was a 2-yr gap then, for the first time, before
> Richard. Is this why Rous says Richard lay two years in his
mother's
> womb
> Marie

That's a logical idea. She had been both fecund and regular - almost
like clockwork with her deliveries. It therefore makes a lot of
sense.
Brunhild

> Whether a prem baby is likely to have been born with a full head
of
> hair and teeth, I don't know. I suspect not. My pair of punks were
> both 'overdue'.

Marie - see my other reply, but as a 10 week prem baby I was born
with a lot of hair! (Only half my skin and blood but no shortage of
hair! LOL) So, yes, that is quite possible. I have no idea, however,
if it is unusual, but a friend has just had an 11 week prem baby and
it had a nice head of hair too.

> I personally feel that the attempt to rationalise the later claims
of
> deformity by referring to later hostile references to Richard's
birth
> is a blind alley, but it does like everything else need to be
> discussed. But, perhaps, as a woman, I do find Cecily's obstetric
> history interesting, little enough though we know about it.
Perhaps
> you'll have to humour us.
> Marie

Marie, I think that, as you said re the name George, that we may
well have both explanations, the rational one you have just
propounded and the exaggerated name-blackening stuff we are all so
cross about. The second may be built upon the foundations of the
first.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:14:19 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >
> > Richard
> > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so much
time
> discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an age
ago?
> ŒRichard liveth yet¹ and that could be a simple comment on
childbirth in the
> Middle Ages. It doesn¹t indicate anything else.

Well, I guess it's because I think it's interesting to speculate on
lots of things. I always have more questions than answers and I'm
interested in other people's answers. And since this is an
electronic forum, at least I'm not responsible for any trees dying to
supply the paper on which I do it. Besides, the search for the truth -
- the answers -- must involve questions. If there was nothing on
which to speculate, re Richard III and his era, would there be a
Richard III Society?

You've said that there was nothing whatever odd about Richard's arm
or shoulder and it was all propaganda. I know he certanly was not a
hunchback, but how can anyone be certain that there was nothing at
all unusual about him? His body doesn't exist anymore. Kendall's
assertion hat he had an overdeveloped right arm from sword practice
is absurd -- if that were true, every old soldier would look like
that and it would not be remarkable, and it's a truism that things
that are remarked upon are remarkable, ie, unusual.

I'm sure there is a big eleent of propaganda involved, if only
because of the Medieval mind-set that the state of the soul is
reflected in the state of the body and face -- an evil person has an
ugly or deformed body, and vice versa. The tale that Richard was a
hunch-backed monster is undoubtedly Tudor-era slander. But if the
whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, why choose to say he had
something odd about one arm or shoulder -- a visible part of the
body? Why not say he had a huge birthmark in the shape of a demon on
some part of his skin not usually on display, or six toes on each
foot, or extra nipples, or three testicles or only one? Those are
more ominous and slanderous deformities and lots more difficult to
refute at casual glance. Why say he had something wrong with a
visible part of the body, if he didn't?

It seems clear that if there was something unusual about one of
Richard's arms or shoulders, it didn't slow him down or interfere
with his life. He had no trouble handling a horse and an axe is at
least as heavy and difficult a weapon as a sword. But I don't think
those facts absolutely contradict the possibility that he had one
shoulder slightly higher or one arm slightly more developed than the
other. Why not? It happens, and it can result from a birth injury,
and both were more common in the centuries before modern medical care.

If someone had proven that the whole story is baloney, I'd like to
get the details, but I don't see how it can be proven one way or the
other.

> > > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:14:19 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> > where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so
much
> time
> > discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an age
> ago?
> > ŒRichard liveth yet¹ and that could be a simple comment on
> childbirth in the
> > Middle Ages. It doesn¹t indicate anything else.
>
> Well, I guess it's because I think it's interesting to speculate on
> lots of things. I always have more questions than answers and I'm
> interested in other people's answers. And since this is an
> electronic forum, at least I'm not responsible for any trees dying
to
> supply the paper on which I do it. Besides, the search for the
truth -
> - the answers -- must involve questions. If there was nothing on
> which to speculate, re Richard III and his era, would there be a
> Richard III Society?
>
> You've said that there was nothing whatever odd about Richard's arm
> or shoulder and it was all propaganda. I know he certanly was not
a
> hunchback, but how can anyone be certain that there was nothing at
> all unusual about him? His body doesn't exist anymore. Kendall's
> assertion hat he had an overdeveloped right arm from sword practice
> is absurd -- if that were true, every old soldier would look like
> that and it would not be remarkable, and it's a truism that things
> that are remarked upon are remarkable, ie, unusual.
>
> I'm sure there is a big eleent of propaganda involved, if only
> because of the Medieval mind-set that the state of the soul is
> reflected in the state of the body and face -- an evil person has
an
> ugly or deformed body, and vice versa. The tale that Richard was a
> hunch-backed monster is undoubtedly Tudor-era slander. But if the
> whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, why choose to say he had
> something odd about one arm or shoulder -- a visible part of the
> body? Why not say he had a huge birthmark in the shape of a demon
on
> some part of his skin not usually on display, or six toes on each
> foot, or extra nipples, or three testicles or only one? Those are
> more ominous and slanderous deformities and lots more difficult to
> refute at casual glance. Why say he had something wrong with a
> visible part of the body, if he didn't?
>
> It seems clear that if there was something unusual about one of
> Richard's arms or shoulders, it didn't slow him down or interfere
> with his life. He had no trouble handling a horse and an axe is at
> least as heavy and difficult a weapon as a sword. But I don't
think
> those facts absolutely contradict the possibility that he had one
> shoulder slightly higher or one arm slightly more developed than
the
> other. Why not? It happens, and it can result from a birth
injury,
> and both were more common in the centuries before modern medical
care.
>
> If someone had proven that the whole story is baloney, I'd like to
> get the details, but I don't see how it can be proven one way or
the
> other.

However, you were speculating on whether a footling birth could have
caused him to have a withered or palsied arm, which doesn't really
accord with what we know of his physical abilites - one arm for a
battle axe and the other to control a big warhorse. But I do agree on
the absurdity of Kendall's 'rationalization'. Perhaps, however, we
need to get the various claims about deformity into some sort of
order:

1) During his lifetime no one, even foreigners who could afford to do
so(and that includes Mancini), mentioned anything. Commines, who
twice describes Edward on account of his striking good looks, gives
no physical description of Richard.

2) Was it in 1486 a York man first used the word crouchback of him?
However, this apparently was also a term for a hypocrite, one who
made a big pretence of carrying his cross on his shoulder, and this
may be primarily what was meant. The city was economically depressed,
and though Richard was popular with the oligarchy, there seem to have
been folk lower down who felt if he were really trying hard on their
behalf they should be feeling more benefit - viz the guy who in 1482
said "What may my Lord of Gloucester do for us of the city? Nothing
but grin of us."

2) Croyland (1486) says Richard's face was thin and his complexion
pale. That's all.

3) Rous (finished by 1490) suggests various oddities at birth such as
long hair and teeth, but I can't at present find any reference to
breech birth. Of his appearance he wrote: "he was small of stature,
with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the
left lower" (apparently the Latin words for left & right were added
in later).

4) Fabyan mentions nothing, though he would have seen Richard.

4) Bernard Andre (1500-3). Certainly vilified Richard, but does
anyone know what he said of his appearance?

5) Vergil (finished by 1513) says he was "little of stature, deformed
of body, the one shoulder higher than the right. . . a short and sour
countenance. . . "

6) More (written c.1513) says he was "little of stature, ill-featured
of limbs, crook-backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right,
hard-favoured of visage. . . It is for truth reported that the
duchess his mother had so much ado in her travail that she could not
be delivered of him uncut: and that he came into the world with the
feet froward. . . ". He of course gives us the scene in the Tower
with Richard revealing his withered arm.

I would say from the above that there was nothing very obviously
remarkable about Richard's appearance other than that he was a rather
slight individual, and may have had an unevenness about the shoulders
which was generally hidden by his tailoring. The wordings of Rous,
Vergil and More are so similar I can only conclude that Vergil copied
Rous and More copied Vergil, each beefing up the last version as they
did so. So these are not three separate reports at all but rather
show that all we really have to go on is Rous's thing about the
shoulder. The withered arm and the breech birth both seem to have
originated with More, who, unlike Rous, was not in a position to have
inside information on Richard's birth. I suggest he found Rous'
description of Richard's birth unsatisfactory (I mean, born with
hair - so what?) and substituted his own. The withered arm and
hunchback seem to be a dvelopment of the uneven shoulders, and since
they are inconsistent with what is known of richard's military career
can be ignored. The withered arm of course provides More with a false
accusation for Richard to make against Hastings et al, one he could
easily ridicule, and so serves as a distraction from the real
accusation. I think a lot of More's lifelike details which make him
so plausible were probably achieved by drawing on things he had
experienced or witnessed in his own life. The June strawberries in
the Bishop of Ely's garden at Holborn, for instance, would be
something he would have remembered fondly from his own youth.
as regards the shoulder, I seem to recall some debate recently in the
ricardian or the Bulletin regarding different forms of scoliosis or
other conditions that may have caused this without impairing function.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >

> > >
> > > Richard
> > > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> > where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so
much
> time
> > discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an
age
> ago?
>
Paul, I have to say, sometimes your responses are less than polite
at times, and I confess I have felt less than polite in response.

>
> I'm sure there is a big eleent of propaganda involved, if only
> because of the Medieval mind-set that the state of the soul is
> reflected in the state of the body and face -- an evil person has
an
> ugly or deformed body, and vice versa. The tale that Richard was
a
> hunch-backed monster is undoubtedly Tudor-era slander. But if the
> whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, why choose to say he
had
> something odd about one arm or shoulder -- a visible part of the
> body? Why not say he had a huge birthmark in the shape of a demon
on
> some part of his skin not usually on display, or six toes on each
> foot, or extra nipples, or three testicles or only one? Those are
> more ominous and slanderous deformities and lots more difficult
to
> refute at casual glance. Why say he had something wrong with a
> visible part of the body, if he didn't?

Seems reasonable but it still doesn't solve the issue of no such
account being given during his life - all describe him as normal -
if any description is given.
>
> It seems clear that if there was something unusual about one of
> Richard's arms or shoulders, it didn't slow him down or interfere
> with his life. He had no trouble handling a horse and an axe is
at
> least as heavy and difficult a weapon as a sword.

I read somewhere that it is heavier than a sword. It may account for
some overdevelopment perhaps if Richard was naturally very slender
and small.

But I don't think
> those facts absolutely contradict the possibility that he had one
> shoulder slightly higher or one arm slightly more developed than
the
> other.

If that were true it would not have been necessary to doctor
paintings to add a higher shoulder.


>Why not? It happens, and it can result from a birth injury,
> and both were more common in the centuries before modern medical
care.
>
> If someone had proven that the whole story is baloney, I'd like to
> get the details, but I don't see how it can be proven one way or
the
> other.

I am one of those who feels that there is not enough evidence of a
trustworthy nature to justify ant belief in deformity, unless it be
something almost negligible.

This is the ³Richard the Third³ Society forum and endless attacks on
particulars of Richard¹s reputation that have been satisfactorily defended
again and again, and proved without foundation, gets my goat. If you want to
attack Richard go to a Tudor sight and you¹ll find a few like minded folk no
doubt.
Just makes me angry, and I guess my responses reflect that.
Try coming at the subject from the other end for a change, rather than going
back through the Tudor propaganda dissemination and trying to find how such
³facts² are based on reality instead of fantasy.
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:24:37 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Paul, I have to say, sometimes your responses are less than polite
> at times, and I confess I have felt less than polite in response.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> This is the ³Richard the Third³ Society forum and endless attacks on
> particulars of Richard¹s reputation that have been satisfactorily
defended
> again and again, and proved without foundation, gets my goat. If
you want to
> attack Richard go to a Tudor sight and you¹ll find a few like
minded folk no
> doubt.
> Just makes me angry, and I guess my responses reflect that.
> Try coming at the subject from the other end for a change, rather
than going
> back through the Tudor propaganda dissemination and trying to find
how such
> ³facts² are based on reality instead of fantasy.
> Paul


Now, Paul Trevor, keep your hair on.

I don't think we have any Tudor infiltrators currently, or anyone
indeed who doesn't genuinely want the truth. Unfortunately, every
time a 'satisfactory defence' is made, some ingenious traditionalist
comes up with a new spin on the old story to make it seem respectable
again. The breech birth=withered arm one is just such. I've read it,
and evidently so have others, and there will be people who find it
convincing. So we can't be too snooty to discuss it. Or should one
only preach to the converted? I've personally found it useful to go
over the sources again, and the build-up of the deformities. After a
long number of years it can be hard to remember just why you think
what you do.
By the by, just bear in mind that physical imperfections wouldn't
prove Richard a villain. My dad was slight & dark & had one shoulder
higher than the other. . . .

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:14:19 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> > > where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so
> much
> > time
> > > discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an
age
> > ago?
> > > ŒRichard liveth yet¹ and that could be a simple comment on
> > childbirth in the
> > > Middle Ages. It doesn¹t indicate anything else.
> >
> > Well, I guess it's because I think it's interesting to speculate
on
> > lots of things. I always have more questions than answers and I'm
> > interested in other people's answers. And since this is an
> > electronic forum, at least I'm not responsible for any trees
dying
> to
> > supply the paper on which I do it. Besides, the search for the
> truth -
> > - the answers -- must involve questions. If there was nothing on
> > which to speculate, re Richard III and his era, would there be a
> > Richard III Society?
> >
> > You've said that there was nothing whatever odd about Richard's
arm
> > or shoulder and it was all propaganda. I know he certanly was
not
> a
> > hunchback, but how can anyone be certain that there was nothing
at
> > all unusual about him? His body doesn't exist anymore.
Kendall's
> > assertion hat he had an overdeveloped right arm from sword
practice
> > is absurd -- if that were true, every old soldier would look like
> > that and it would not be remarkable, and it's a truism that
things
> > that are remarked upon are remarkable, ie, unusual.
> >
> > I'm sure there is a big eleent of propaganda involved, if only
> > because of the Medieval mind-set that the state of the soul is
> > reflected in the state of the body and face -- an evil person has
> an
> > ugly or deformed body, and vice versa. The tale that Richard was
a
> > hunch-backed monster is undoubtedly Tudor-era slander. But if
the
> > whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, why choose to say he
had
> > something odd about one arm or shoulder -- a visible part of the
> > body? Why not say he had a huge birthmark in the shape of a
demon
> on
> > some part of his skin not usually on display, or six toes on each
> > foot, or extra nipples, or three testicles or only one? Those
are
> > more ominous and slanderous deformities and lots more difficult
to
> > refute at casual glance. Why say he had something wrong with a
> > visible part of the body, if he didn't?
> >
> > It seems clear that if there was something unusual about one of
> > Richard's arms or shoulders, it didn't slow him down or interfere
> > with his life. He had no trouble handling a horse and an axe is
at
> > least as heavy and difficult a weapon as a sword. But I don't
> think
> > those facts absolutely contradict the possibility that he had one
> > shoulder slightly higher or one arm slightly more developed than
> the
> > other. Why not? It happens, and it can result from a birth
> injury,
> > and both were more common in the centuries before modern medical
> care.
> >
> > If someone had proven that the whole story is baloney, I'd like
to
> > get the details, but I don't see how it can be proven one way or
> the
> > other.
>
> However, you were speculating on whether a footling birth could
have
> caused him to have a withered or palsied arm, which doesn't really
> accord with what we know of his physical abilites - one arm for a
> battle axe and the other to control a big warhorse. But I do agree
on
> the absurdity of Kendall's 'rationalization'. Perhaps, however, we
> need to get the various claims about deformity into some sort of
> order:
>
> 1) During his lifetime no one, even foreigners who could afford to
do
> so(and that includes Mancini), mentioned anything. Commines, who
> twice describes Edward on account of his striking good looks, gives
> no physical description of Richard.
>
> 2) Was it in 1486 a York man first used the word crouchback of him?
> However, this apparently was also a term for a hypocrite, one who
> made a big pretence of carrying his cross on his shoulder, and this
> may be primarily what was meant. The city was economically
depressed,
> and though Richard was popular with the oligarchy, there seem to
have
> been folk lower down who felt if he were really trying hard on
their
> behalf they should be feeling more benefit - viz the guy who in
1482
> said "What may my Lord of Gloucester do for us of the city? Nothing
> but grin of us."
>
> 2) Croyland (1486) says Richard's face was thin and his complexion
> pale. That's all.
>
> 3) Rous (finished by 1490) suggests various oddities at birth such
as
> long hair and teeth, but I can't at present find any reference to
> breech birth. Of his appearance he wrote: "he was small of stature,
> with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the
> left lower" (apparently the Latin words for left & right were added
> in later).
>
> 4) Fabyan mentions nothing, though he would have seen Richard.
>
> 4) Bernard Andre (1500-3). Certainly vilified Richard, but does
> anyone know what he said of his appearance?
>
> 5) Vergil (finished by 1513) says he was "little of stature,
deformed
> of body, the one shoulder higher than the right. . . a short and
sour
> countenance. . . "
>
> 6) More (written c.1513) says he was "little of stature, ill-
featured
> of limbs, crook-backed, his left shoulder much higher than his
right,
> hard-favoured of visage. . . It is for truth reported that the
> duchess his mother had so much ado in her travail that she could
not
> be delivered of him uncut: and that he came into the world with the
> feet froward. . . ". He of course gives us the scene in the Tower
> with Richard revealing his withered arm.
>
> I would say from the above that there was nothing very obviously
> remarkable about Richard's appearance other than that he was a
rather
> slight individual, and may have had an unevenness about the
shoulders
> which was generally hidden by his tailoring. The wordings of Rous,
> Vergil and More are so similar I can only conclude that Vergil
copied
> Rous and More copied Vergil, each beefing up the last version as
they
> did so. So these are not three separate reports at all but rather
> show that all we really have to go on is Rous's thing about the
> shoulder. The withered arm and the breech birth both seem to have
> originated with More, who, unlike Rous, was not in a position to
have
> inside information on Richard's birth. I suggest he found Rous'
> description of Richard's birth unsatisfactory (I mean, born with
> hair - so what?) and substituted his own. The withered arm and
> hunchback seem to be a dvelopment of the uneven shoulders, and
since
> they are inconsistent with what is known of richard's military
career
> can be ignored. The withered arm of course provides More with a
false
> accusation for Richard to make against Hastings et al, one he could
> easily ridicule, and so serves as a distraction from the real
> accusation. I think a lot of More's lifelike details which make him
> so plausible were probably achieved by drawing on things he had
> experienced or witnessed in his own life. The June strawberries in
> the Bishop of Ely's garden at Holborn, for instance, would be
> something he would have remembered fondly from his own youth.
> as regards the shoulder, I seem to recall some debate recently in
the
> ricardian or the Bulletin regarding different forms of scoliosis or
> other conditions that may have caused this without impairing
function.


Thanks, Marie, for going to the trouble of listing all that for me.
As I said, I wonder and speculate about all sorts of things, some
more far-feteched than others, but I'm really interested in the
inforation and what has been learned.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> This is the ³Richard the Third³ Society forum and endless attacks on
> particulars of Richard¹s reputation that have been satisfactorily
defended
> again and again, and proved without foundation, gets my goat. If
you want to
> attack Richard go to a Tudor sight and you¹ll find a few like
minded folk no
> doubt.
> Just makes me angry, and I guess my responses reflect that.
> Try coming at the subject from the other end for a change, rather
than going
> back through the Tudor propaganda dissemination and trying to find
how such
> ³facts² are based on reality instead of fantasy.
> Paul
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:24:37 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >
> > Paul, I have to say, sometimes your responses are less than polite
> > at times, and I confess I have felt less than polite in response.

Gee, I didn't mean to upset you. I wasn't attacking Richard. I'm
distinctly pro-Richard. I find all these things fascinating, though
they are obviously "old news" to you. I was just asking for
information, which Marie was kind enough to give me.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > > allegedy was a dificult birth,
> > > where do you get this rubbish from and why are you spending so
> much
> > time
> > > discussing something that has been discarded as propaganda an
> age
> > ago?
> >
> Paul, I have to say, sometimes your responses are less than polite
> at times, and I confess I have felt less than polite in response.
>
> >
> > I'm sure there is a big eleent of propaganda involved, if only
> > because of the Medieval mind-set that the state of the soul is
> > reflected in the state of the body and face -- an evil person has
> an
> > ugly or deformed body, and vice versa. The tale that Richard was
> a
> > hunch-backed monster is undoubtedly Tudor-era slander. But if
the
> > whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, why choose to say he
> had
> > something odd about one arm or shoulder -- a visible part of the
> > body? Why not say he had a huge birthmark in the shape of a
demon
> on
> > some part of his skin not usually on display, or six toes on each
> > foot, or extra nipples, or three testicles or only one? Those
are
> > more ominous and slanderous deformities and lots more difficult
> to
> > refute at casual glance. Why say he had something wrong with a
> > visible part of the body, if he didn't?
>
> Seems reasonable but it still doesn't solve the issue of no such
> account being given during his life - all describe him as normal -
> if any description is given.
> >
> > It seems clear that if there was something unusual about one of
> > Richard's arms or shoulders, it didn't slow him down or interfere
> > with his life. He had no trouble handling a horse and an axe is
> at
> > least as heavy and difficult a weapon as a sword.
>
> I read somewhere that it is heavier than a sword. It may account
for
> some overdevelopment perhaps if Richard was naturally very slender
> and small.
>
> But I don't think
> > those facts absolutely contradict the possibility that he had one
> > shoulder slightly higher or one arm slightly more developed than
> the
> > other.
>
> If that were true it would not have been necessary to doctor
> paintings to add a higher shoulder.
>
>
> >Why not? It happens, and it can result from a birth injury,
> > and both were more common in the centuries before modern medical
> care.
> >
> > If someone had proven that the whole story is baloney, I'd like
to
> > get the details, but I don't see how it can be proven one way or
> the
> > other.
>
> I am one of those who feels that there is not enough evidence of a
> trustworthy nature to justify ant belief in deformity, unless it be
> something almost negligible.

I see what you mean, after reading Marie's synopsis of the various
mentions of the progression of something unusual to a withered arm to
being a twisted-faced hunchback...a lesson in propaganda-building.

I really did merely wanto to know, I assure you, and was not
intending make somebody angry by venturing onto a forbidden topic.

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:35:19 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> By the by, just bear in mind that physical imperfections wouldn't
> prove Richard a villain.

Except that nobody in his lifetime mentioned anything out of the ordinary
about him, not even the enemies who left him naked for two days in public
view in Leicester after his death at Bosworth, not even Commynes after
Richard stormed away from Picquiny in disgust at his brother¹s deal with the
French king. So why are you trying to prove a deformity when none existed?
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:35:19 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >
> > By the by, just bear in mind that physical imperfections wouldn't
> > prove Richard a villain.
>
> Except that nobody in his lifetime mentioned anything out of the
ordinary
> about him, not even the enemies who left him naked for two days in
public
> view in Leicester after his death at Bosworth, not even Commynes
after
> Richard stormed away from Picquiny in disgust at his brother¹s deal
with the
> French king. So why are you trying to prove a deformity when none
existed?
> Paul

Paul, sometimes I wonder if you are really reading me. I am NOT
trying to prove a deformity, I am trying to assess the evidence (or
lack of it), which you seem to believe is heresy in itself. I have
already made the point in my own messages that nobody in his lifetime
mentioned anything out of the ordinary - even Commines - so I'm not
sure why you feel the need to repeat this back to me. You wouldn't be
doing that male thing of trying to take the credit for that
observation for yourself now, would you? I am also aware of Tim's
point that his enemies would want to demonstrate that he was not made
in God's image. But that doesn't prove that he was physically
perfect. Almost none of us are.
The question is: is there anything behind (hostile) eyewitness Rous'
assertion that there was an unevenness in the shoulders, and was the
1486 "crouchback" slur from York meant literally or figuratively? We
have no way of knowing, beyond saying that the answer must be
consistent with the non-observance of deformity by the run of
eyewitnesses and Richard's physical prowess. Jones may be correct in
saying that it was the state of Richard's body as displayed after
Bosworth that gave rise to these reports, but again we have no way of
knowing beyond the obvious point that it must have made slurs on his
physique more credible.
So all we can say for certain is that any physical imperfection would
have been either non-existent or very slight. Surely Richard's
enemies would have homed in on whatever imperfection they could find
and exaggerate from it, and as I say few of us are physically
perfect. Perhaps you are, Paul, but I'm not for one - my two little
fingers bend sideways, and one side of my face is a lot narrower than
the other (well outside the normal range of difference, I mean). Put
like that it sounds grotesque, but I can assure you nobody notices
when they meet me. In fact, I didn't realise about the facial
irregularity myself until a doctor told me when I was about 40.

Since what we are talking about is clearly the presence or absence of
an insignificant irregularity I can't see why you are getting so
boiled over about it. To me that looks like an acceptance of the
Tudor line that it actually has some bearing on his character. That
is why I keep reminding you that the two things are not connected. I
was not, as you perhaps imagine, suggesting Richard had the same
unevenness of the shoulders as my father. That was quite marked and
associated with a bad limp (it was due to an injury he sustained in
the Welsh mountains as a young man). He definitely couldn't have
fought on horseback - he didn't even manage to pass his driving test.
But he was a perfect gentleman and I do find this terror at the idea
that Richard may not have had even some slight physical imperfection
rather unpleasant in itself.
I might remind you, Paul, that it was my discussions that convinced
our friend that Richard had no withered arm, not your insults.
Frankly, if I were her I would not have apologised to you.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:35:19 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > >
> > > By the by, just bear in mind that physical imperfections
wouldn't
> > > prove Richard a villain.
> >
> > Except that nobody in his lifetime mentioned anything out of the
> ordinary
> > about him, not even the enemies who left him naked for two days
in
> public
> > view in Leicester after his death at Bosworth, not even Commynes
> after
> > Richard stormed away from Picquiny in disgust at his brother¹s
deal
> with the
> > French king. So why are you trying to prove a deformity when none
> existed?
> > Paul
>
> Paul, sometimes I wonder if you are really reading me. I am NOT
> trying to prove a deformity, I am trying to assess the evidence (or
> lack of it), which you seem to believe is heresy in itself. I have
> already made the point in my own messages that nobody in his
lifetime
> mentioned anything out of the ordinary - even Commines - so I'm not
> sure why you feel the need to repeat this back to me. You wouldn't
be
> doing that male thing of trying to take the credit for that
> observation for yourself now, would you? I am also aware of Tim's
> point that his enemies would want to demonstrate that he was not
made
> in God's image. But that doesn't prove that he was physically
> perfect. Almost none of us are.
> The question is: is there anything behind (hostile) eyewitness
Rous'
> assertion that there was an unevenness in the shoulders, and was
the
> 1486 "crouchback" slur from York meant literally or figuratively?
We
> have no way of knowing, beyond saying that the answer must be
> consistent with the non-observance of deformity by the run of
> eyewitnesses and Richard's physical prowess. Jones may be correct
in
> saying that it was the state of Richard's body as displayed after
> Bosworth that gave rise to these reports, but again we have no way
of
> knowing beyond the obvious point that it must have made slurs on
his
> physique more credible.
> So all we can say for certain is that any physical imperfection
would
> have been either non-existent or very slight. Surely Richard's
> enemies would have homed in on whatever imperfection they could
find
> and exaggerate from it, and as I say few of us are physically
> perfect. Perhaps you are, Paul, but I'm not for one - my two little
> fingers bend sideways, and one side of my face is a lot narrower
than
> the other (well outside the normal range of difference, I mean).
Put
> like that it sounds grotesque, but I can assure you nobody notices
> when they meet me. In fact, I didn't realise about the facial
> irregularity myself until a doctor told me when I was about 40.
>
> Since what we are talking about is clearly the presence or absence
of
> an insignificant irregularity I can't see why you are getting so
> boiled over about it. To me that looks like an acceptance of the
> Tudor line that it actually has some bearing on his character. That
> is why I keep reminding you that the two things are not connected.
I
> was not, as you perhaps imagine, suggesting Richard had the same
> unevenness of the shoulders as my father. That was quite marked and
> associated with a bad limp (it was due to an injury he sustained in
> the Welsh mountains as a young man). He definitely couldn't have
> fought on horseback - he didn't even manage to pass his driving
test.
> But he was a perfect gentleman and I do find this terror at the
idea
> that Richard may not have had even some slight physical
imperfection
> rather unpleasant in itself.
> I might remind you, Paul, that it was my discussions that convinced
> our friend that Richard had no withered arm, not your insults.
> Frankly, if I were her I would not have apologised to you.
>
> Marie

Very well put, Marie, in every respect. I was thinking the same
thing but hesitated to say so and provoke the gentleman further.
I really don't see why my qestions were interpreted as an attack on
Richard, anyway. Well-meaning (though maybe ignorant)questions are
allowed in this forum, I hope.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:35:19 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> > > >
> > > > By the by, just bear in mind that physical imperfections
> wouldn't
> > > > prove Richard a villain.
> > >
> > > Except that nobody in his lifetime mentioned anything out of
the
> > ordinary
> > > about him, not even the enemies who left him naked for two days
> in
> > public
> > > view in Leicester after his death at Bosworth, not even
Commynes
> > after
> > > Richard stormed away from Picquiny in disgust at his brother¹s
> deal
> > with the
> > > French king. So why are you trying to prove a deformity when
none
> > existed?
> > > Paul
> >
> > Paul, sometimes I wonder if you are really reading me. I am NOT
> > trying to prove a deformity, I am trying to assess the evidence
(or
> > lack of it), which you seem to believe is heresy in itself. I
have
> > already made the point in my own messages that nobody in his
> lifetime
> > mentioned anything out of the ordinary - even Commines - so I'm
not
> > sure why you feel the need to repeat this back to me. You
wouldn't
> be
> > doing that male thing of trying to take the credit for that
> > observation for yourself now, would you? I am also aware of Tim's
> > point that his enemies would want to demonstrate that he was not
> made
> > in God's image. But that doesn't prove that he was physically
> > perfect. Almost none of us are.
> > The question is: is there anything behind (hostile) eyewitness
> Rous'
> > assertion that there was an unevenness in the shoulders, and was
> the
> > 1486 "crouchback" slur from York meant literally or
figuratively?
> We
> > have no way of knowing, beyond saying that the answer must be
> > consistent with the non-observance of deformity by the run of
> > eyewitnesses and Richard's physical prowess. Jones may be correct
> in
> > saying that it was the state of Richard's body as displayed after
> > Bosworth that gave rise to these reports, but again we have no
way
> of
> > knowing beyond the obvious point that it must have made slurs on
> his
> > physique more credible.
> > So all we can say for certain is that any physical imperfection
> would
> > have been either non-existent or very slight. Surely Richard's
> > enemies would have homed in on whatever imperfection they could
> find
> > and exaggerate from it, and as I say few of us are physically
> > perfect. Perhaps you are, Paul, but I'm not for one - my two
little
> > fingers bend sideways, and one side of my face is a lot narrower
> than
> > the other (well outside the normal range of difference, I mean).
> Put
> > like that it sounds grotesque, but I can assure you nobody
notices
> > when they meet me. In fact, I didn't realise about the facial
> > irregularity myself until a doctor told me when I was about 40.
> >
> > Since what we are talking about is clearly the presence or
absence
> of
> > an insignificant irregularity I can't see why you are getting so
> > boiled over about it. To me that looks like an acceptance of the
> > Tudor line that it actually has some bearing on his character.
That
> > is why I keep reminding you that the two things are not
connected.
> I
> > was not, as you perhaps imagine, suggesting Richard had the same
> > unevenness of the shoulders as my father. That was quite marked
and
> > associated with a bad limp (it was due to an injury he sustained
in
> > the Welsh mountains as a young man). He definitely couldn't have
> > fought on horseback - he didn't even manage to pass his driving
> test.
> > But he was a perfect gentleman and I do find this terror at the
> idea
> > that Richard may not have had even some slight physical
> imperfection
> > rather unpleasant in itself.
> > I might remind you, Paul, that it was my discussions that
convinced
> > our friend that Richard had no withered arm, not your insults.
> > Frankly, if I were her I would not have apologised to you.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Very well put, Marie, in every respect. I was thinking the same
> thing but hesitated to say so and provoke the gentleman further.
> I really don't see why my qestions were interpreted as an attack on
> Richard, anyway. Well-meaning (though maybe ignorant)questions
are
> allowed in this forum, I hope.
>
> Katy

Of course questions on this subject are allowed. As I alluded to in
an earlier message, there has been discussion of these very issues in
the latest Ricardian so I think that demonstrates the Society
position. Aren't all questions ignorant ones, anyway, or we wouldn't
be asking? I've now received an email from Paul; to be fair to him
he hadn't seen my message listing the sources, but he is apparently
now insulted that I suggested he might be physically perfect (you
just can't please some people). I hope he didn't offend you too much.

Marie

---
>
> Of course questions on this subject are allowed. As I alluded to in
> an earlier message, there has been discussion of these very issues
in
> the latest Ricardian so I think that demonstrates the Society
> position. Aren't all questions ignorant ones, anyway, or we
wouldn't
> be asking? I've now received an email from Paul; to be fair to him
> he hadn't seen my message listing the sources, but he is apparently
> now insulted that I suggested he might be physically perfect (you
> just can't please some people). I hope he didn't offend you too
much.
>
> Marie

I'd be very interested in that issue of the Ricardian. I'm not a
member of the R III Society but it sounds like it's time for me to
join. Hopefuly I can purchase back issues.

I was more astonished than offended by Paul's conduct. He seems
rather excitable. I'm happy to hear that his mindset doesn't
represent the group as a whole. It's unfortunate that I annoyed him,
since we might have had a nice synergy -- I have lots of questons,
and he has all the answers. Oh well....

Speaking of questions, and harking back a ways to the subject of
Richard's children, what do you think of the Richard Plantagenet of
Kent story? Since he took good care of his bastards John and
Katherine, acknowledged them, had them at court, made a good marriage
for Katherine, I'd wonder why this one had lived and died in
obscurity.


Katy

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:01:14 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> I've now received an email from Paul; to be fair to him
> he hadn't seen my message listing the sources, but he is apparently
> now insulted that I suggested he might be physically perfect
You do not seem to appreciate I emailed you privately so that it would
remain private. Privacy seems to be a concept you do not appreciate, rather
like the irony I was displaying in my comments about physical perfection!
No wonder some people can get upset.
I¹ll publish a few private emails here myself now. Oh no, I won¹t. I¹m a
gentleman and respect people when they post privately.
Time to delete unread Marie¹s future postings I think.
Paul
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:01:14 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Seventh Son
> >
> > I've now received an email from Paul; to be fair to him
> > he hadn't seen my message listing the sources, but he is
apparently
> > now insulted that I suggested he might be physically perfect
> You do not seem to appreciate I emailed you privately so that it
would
> remain private. Privacy seems to be a concept you do not
appreciate, rather
> like the irony I was displaying in my comments about physical
perfection!
> No wonder some people can get upset.
> I¹ll publish a few private emails here myself now. Oh no, I won¹t.
I¹m a
> gentleman and respect people when they post privately.
> Time to delete unread Marie¹s future postings I think.
> Paul
> Paul

Paul as you may have noticed if you go back through previous messages
I am usually very polite, so does it not occur to you that you have
done something to offend people? As for your private email, I did
hesitate before mentioning it but you had had a go at myself and
Katie in public, showing no concern for our privacy. There was
nothing in that email you couldn't more properly have said publicly
to set the record straight. Personally, I'm sorry I was goaded into
having a go back. And Katie was right, it's only stirred you up
further. I do find it extraordinary that you can call for me to be
banned from the list after your own unretracted outburst against her.

I accept that you had to some extent misunderstood our messages, but
oops! there I've breached privacy again. Why can't you just tell
everybody that?
What I do think still needs making clear is that Katie and I were
completely within our rights in discussing claims of Richard's
deformities, and I don't intend to be intimidated regarding suitable
subjects for discussion. That said, I think we should draw a line
under the whole business. I for one don't intend to discuss this any
further.
Marie

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> ---
> >
> > Of course questions on this subject are allowed. As I alluded to
in
> > an earlier message, there has been discussion of these very
issues
> in
> > the latest Ricardian so I think that demonstrates the Society
> > position. Aren't all questions ignorant ones, anyway, or we
> wouldn't
> > be asking? I've now received an email from Paul; to be fair to
him
> > he hadn't seen my message listing the sources, but he is
apparently
> > now insulted that I suggested he might be physically perfect (you
> > just can't please some people). I hope he didn't offend you too
> much.
> >
> > Marie
>
> I'd be very interested in that issue of the Ricardian. I'm not a
> member of the R III Society but it sounds like it's time for me to
> join. Hopefuly I can purchase back issues.
>
> I was more astonished than offended by Paul's conduct. He seems
> rather excitable. I'm happy to hear that his mindset doesn't
> represent the group as a whole. It's unfortunate that I annoyed
him,
> since we might have had a nice synergy -- I have lots of questons,
> and he has all the answers. Oh well....
>
> Speaking of questions, and harking back a ways to the subject of
> Richard's children, what do you think of the Richard Plantagenet of
> Kent story? Since he took good care of his bastards John and
> Katherine, acknowledged them, had them at court, made a good
marriage
> for Katherine, I'd wonder why this one had lived and died in
> obscurity.
>
>
> Katy

It was in the correspondence section of Ricardian Bulletin, Summer
2003. It would be great if you joined the Society. Honestly, in 22
years I've never had a row with another member! I sometimes think
there's something about the email medium that makes for trigger-
happiness.

Yes, and I'll raise a toast to July 6th.

Don't know about Richard Plantegenet of Kent. Off the top of my head,
there really is an entry in the Eastwell burial register in December
1550 which reads "Richard Plantagenet", but the first written
versions of his story don't come until much much later, by which time
the manor had changed hands. I suppose if he wasn't a hoaxter then he
much have been a bastard member of the House of York, and if he was
Edward's he woudn't have had to live so obscurely. Which only leaves
Clarence and Richard. Since he was named Richard, then Richard does I
suppose seem more likely.
It is notable that both John and Katherine seem to have been born
before Richard's marriage, so there would have been no embarrassment,
or offence caused to his wife, in acknowledging them. According to
the story, Richard of Eastwell was also born when Richard was young,
and was 16 at the time of Bosworth. However, there are problems with
this. Firstly, we are told in one version he was brought to the
battlefield and to the King's tent, and then told to stay safe. Now,
at 16 he was old enough to fight; I can't see him being acknowledged
on the battlefield, anyway. He then flees and wanders around for ages
and then takes up as a mason's apprentice. Now, at 16 he was already
a bit old to be starting an apprenticeship. But the biggest problem
is that apparently at the time Eastwell manor house was built this
would make him already an old man, and so it isn't that likely he was
still working. So I suspect that if he was Richard's son he was a lot
younger than the story says. It doesn't make such good drama but is
more plausible. The Hopper family believe he was a full brother of
their ancestress Anne, who according to their story was born in the
early 1480s. If there is any truth in either of these stories, then I
think the likeliest reason we hear nothing of these children during
Richard's lifetime is that they were born after his marriage, and
were very small when he died and so wouldn't have needed any
provision other than some maintenance for the mother.
Although the Hopper story claims that Anne was the child of a lady
Richard brought down from Edinburgh to Kent, this seems a bit
implausible too - why take her to Kent? Maybe the true story was just
that she was conceived when Richard came down that way after taking
Edinburgh. I know he came down to London after the Scots campaign,
but I don't know if he visited Kent; however, just suppose he did -
why might he have done? Well, one reason might have been to visit his
daughter Katherine, whose mother was one of the Kent Hautes. It seems
to me it is not impossible that such visits may occasionally have
resulted in, shall we say, a renewal of relations and the birth of a
couple of further children. That's a suspicion I have, but it is of
course pure wild speculation.
What are your thoughts?
Marie

Regarding the 1550 entry in Eastwell I remembered reading a story
about Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell in a genealogy magazine, I'm
sorry I can't remember which one except it was an English magazine.

There was a point made in a footnote by Anthony Camp, former director
of the Society of Genealogists, that the entry was made later in a
different hand. He didn't explain though why anyone would do that.

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Regarding the 1550 entry in Eastwell I remembered reading a story
> about Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell in a genealogy magazine, I'm
> sorry I can't remember which one except it was an English magazine.
>
> There was a point made in a footnote by Anthony Camp, former
director
> of the Society of Genealogists, that the entry was made later in a
> different hand. He didn't explain though why anyone would do that.

I don't know about that. All Peter Hammond's article said was:
"The entry reads 'Rychard Plantegent was buryed the xxij day e of
Desember, Anno ut supra', and appears under the year 1550. This entry
is the foundation of all the stories about Richard Plantagenet. It
appears to be genuine, the register is in fact a copy made in 1598 by
the then Vicar, Josias Nicholls, in accordance with an order made in
that year that all existing paper registers be copied into vellum
books, but there is no reason to suppose that Nicholls forged the
entry. There is no known record of the 1550 burial in any document
dated earlier than 1598, but whoever officiated at Eastwell on that
day almost certainly did bury someone named Richard Plantagenet."

So perhaps Camp was confused, thinking that particular entry was a
1598 addition to the original register, or perhaps he is right and
the entry is in a different hand from the rest of the 1598 copy. I've
just been on the LDS website and got the film numer for the Eastwell
registers, and I can order it as soon as my family history centre
starts taking orders again in September. If anyone else is able to to
this before then, the film number is 01473755, and it's item 2.

Marie

Paul (and others), much as I hate to see anyone write well of the
Tudor upstart or badly of Richard, as an historian I wouldn't be
doing my job if I didn't consider all the evidence before forming a
judgement. I am as biased as the next person in here, and astonish
my students annually when they begin A level history and watch the
Battle fo Bosworth - I invariably burst into tears! But discussion
would be neither so productive nor so interesting if we worked
wearing blinkers. And we can always happily pooh pooh the stuff we
don't like afterwards! I kow I do!

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:01:12 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Paul (and others), much as I hate to see anyone write well of the
> Tudor upstart or badly of Richard, as an historian I wouldn't be
> doing my job if I didn't consider all the evidence before forming a
> judgement.

I do the same, and have even been known to read the dreaded Weir in the
interests of Œknow thy enemy¹. This whole thing has got out of hand and the
wrong impression got of me in some quarters, mainly by a certain person
misreading and judging my passion for Richard. I apologise for any offence I
have caused, although I don¹t seem to have caused offence to anyone other
than that certain person. I do not need, nor ever ask, for anyone else to
apologise for me. For my passion for Richard, for my offence at the charges
repeatedly made about him, no matter where, and for my getting upset at
insults being thrown in his direction I make no apology. And if some one
thinks my calling often proved as inaccurate statments Œrubbish¹ is an
insult, they can mail me off list for a list of really insulting language
both ancient and modern <g> in murrey and blue!
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:01:12 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> I am as biased as the next person in here, and astonish
> my students annually when they begin A level history and watch the
> Battle fo Bosworth - I invariably burst into tears!

I meant to ask, you say your students start A level and watch the battle of
Bosworth. How do they do that, or rather, how do you present it?
Just interested.
Paul

Paul, the first unit we do is (God forgive me!) Henry VII. As part
of this we have to evaluate the role of Bosworth. So after
discovering a little of the 15thC thru "chalk and talk", with
paintings and primary sources, they watch a one hour video of R3 and
the battle. We look later at R3 as king, since we wish to evaluate
how new HT was - so we compare him with Richard and Edward. And for
my personal enjoyment and to develop their skills with late medieval
sources - we explore the muder of the princes issue. Happily the
majority generally find in R3's favour....ahem...I do TRY to present
fair evidence. <hangs head in shame knowing how biased I am!> Onc e
we finish Bosworth it gets dull until the end of the unit when we
evaluate Henry - and this year's 13 students hated him!!!!! (I count
that four months well spent!) The whole unit is source examination
based and therefore we use sources at every opportunity. This year,
thanks to the new books available, I have a number of great new
sources on Richard and the battle. I would rather like something new
on the Stanleys, so if anyone has anything interesting....?
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> Paul, the first unit we do is (God forgive me!) Henry VII. As part
> of this we have to evaluate the role of Bosworth. So after
> discovering a little of the 15thC thru "chalk and talk", with
> paintings and primary sources, they watch a one hour video of R3
and
> the battle. We look later at R3 as king, since we wish to evaluate
> how new HT was - so we compare him with Richard and Edward. And for
> my personal enjoyment and to develop their skills with late
medieval
> sources - we explore the muder of the princes issue. Happily the
> majority generally find in R3's favour....ahem...I do TRY to
present
> fair evidence. <hangs head in shame knowing how biased I am!> Onc e
> we finish Bosworth it gets dull until the end of the unit when we
> evaluate Henry - and this year's 13 students hated him!!!!! (I
count
> that four months well spent!) The whole unit is source examination
> based and therefore we use sources at every opportunity. This year,
> thanks to the new books available, I have a number of great new
> sources on Richard and the battle. I would rather like something
new
> on the Stanleys, so if anyone has anything interesting....?
> Brunhild

Dorry, probably not new to anyone but me as I'm totally ignorant of
everything from 1485 to 19th century. However, watching to Michael
Wood Shakespeare prog. last night I was interested to learn that:

1) Shakespeare may have spent early adult years in Lancashire with
network of Catholic families, who included the Stanleys
2) The Queen's Players, the first company that Sh. worked for, were
def. financed as political propaganda
3) When Sh. got his own company, they were bankrolled by Ferdinando
Stanley
4) It was probably his outspoken political views that led to rival
Ch. Marlowe's violent death - an object lesson
5) Shakespeare said something to the effect of being very careful
what he said himself.
Marie

All in all very interesting.

Marie

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 19:34:06 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Paul, the first unit we do is (God forgive me!) Henry VII. As part
> of this we have to evaluate the role of Bosworth. So after
> discovering a little of the 15thC thru "chalk and talk", with
> paintings and primary sources, they watch a one hour video of R3 and
> the battle.
What video is this?
Of course most of the traditional account of Bosworth is being challenged
nowadays, especially by Michael Jones who also offers a new view of
Richard¹s character. Controversial of course, what about Richard isn¹t? Have
to admit it is a very attractive Richard, and he comes at him from the
1450s, and not backwards trying to unexplain the hatred the Tudors had for
him. Even the battle makes more sense in Michael¹s account. But I never went
for the Ambion Hill site when it was new, or the account of the battle put
forward by Williams. Didn¹t make any sense to me. So the Dadlington and now
Athersone scenarios both make more sense, militarily speaking as well as
emotionally.

>We look later at R3 as king, since we wish to evaluate
> how new HT was - so we compare him with Richard and Edward. And for
> my personal enjoyment and to develop their skills with late medieval
> sources - we explore the muder of the princes issue. Happily the
> majority generally find in R3's favour....ahem...I do TRY to present
> fair evidence. <hangs head in shame knowing how biased I am!> Onc e
> we finish Bosworth it gets dull until the end of the unit
Henry VII dull? Can¹t imagine that <g>!
>when we
> evaluate Henry - and this year's 13 students hated him!!!!! (I count
> that four months well spent!)
Well done!
>The whole unit is source examination
> based and therefore we use sources at every opportunity. This year,
> thanks to the new books available, I have a number of great new
> sources on Richard and the battle. I would rather like something new
> on the Stanleys, so if anyone has anything interesting....?
In a new film on Shakespeare on UK tv they mention the Stanleys possible
involvement with William¹s youthful exploits, and that he may have spent
some of the missing lost years in the employment of the Stanleys or their
near neighbours. I also remember reading that after the execution of Mary
Queen of Scots Ferdinando Stanley, William¹s grandson, became the Catholic
heir to the throne of England. Now had he become king that would have made
William¹s betrayal of Richard at Bosworth even more ironic!
Of course, I¹m now reading that it may well have been Rhys Ap Griffith who
saved Henry and not Stanley! The sun shines, then suddenly the mist comes
down again!!
Paul

> Dorry, probably not new to anyone but me as I'm totally ignorant
of
> everything from 1485 to 19th century. However, watching to Michael
> Wood Shakespeare prog. last night I was interested to learn that:
>
> 1) Shakespeare may have spent early adult years in Lancashire with
> network of Catholic families, who included the Stanleys
> 2) The Queen's Players, the first company that Sh. worked for,
were
> def. financed as political propaganda
> 3) When Sh. got his own company, they were bankrolled by
Ferdinando
> Stanley
> 4) It was probably his outspoken political views that led to rival
> Ch. Marlowe's violent death - an object lesson
> 5) Shakespeare said something to the effect of being very careful
> what he said himself.
> Marie
>
> All in all very interesting.
>
> Marie

I watched that with great interest too, Marie. The Stanley link was
very interesting. I was saddened about the losses of Tudor buildings
in London, but quite fascinated by the "new" (?) version of Kit
Marlowe's death.

Which video - it's at work, all I can remember is it's an hour long,
and the man with grey hair who does the BBC battles stuff is the
presenter. Or maybe it's half an hour long? Oh I dunno - it's been a
long day! :-(

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> Which video - it's at work, all I can remember is it's an hour
long,
> and the man with grey hair who does the BBC battles stuff is the
> presenter. Or maybe it's half an hour long? Oh I dunno - it's been
a
> long day! :-(

Speaking of the Stanleys, one source I read indicated that Thomas and
William may have been twins. Does anyone know anything about that?

I'm interested in twins in history, and was even before I had twins
of my own. (Prenatal influence?) I know of the Beaumont twins, of
whom Robert became the next Earl of Beaumont, but I'd be interested
in learning of any others oin our favorite era.

>>>Speaking of the Stanleys, one source I read indicated that Thomas
and
William may have been twins. Does anyone know anything about that?

I'm interested in twins in history, and was even before I had twins
of my
own. (Prenatal influence?) I know of the Beaumont twins, of whom
Robert
became the next Earl of Beaumont, but I'd be interested in learning
of any
others oin our favorite era.<<<

From what I recall, there were a couple of years (maybe as many as
five)
between Thomas and William, Thomas being the elder. They do seem to
have
been fairly close, and as I posted a while ago, I find very little
back-biting or-stabbing between them, and, for the most part, a
smooth working
relationship. Things seemed to have splintered after Bosworth.

Maria
elena@...
(wishing everyone on the list a happy San Fermin: the day of the
running
of the bulls in Pamplona)

---
> >
> >
>
>
> It was in the correspondence section of Ricardian Bulletin, Summer
> 2003. It would be great if you joined the Society. Honestly, in 22
> years I've never had a row with another member! I sometimes think
> there's something about the email medium that makes for trigger-
> happiness.
>
> Yes, and I'll raise a toast to July 6th.
>
> Don't know about Richard Plantegenet of Kent. Off the top of my
head,
> there really is an entry in the Eastwell burial register in
December
> 1550 which reads "Richard Plantagenet", but the first written
> versions of his story don't come until much much later, by which
time
> the manor had changed hands. I suppose if he wasn't a hoaxter then
he
> much have been a bastard member of the House of York, and if he was
> Edward's he woudn't have had to live so obscurely. Which only
leaves
> Clarence and Richard. Since he was named Richard, then Richard does
I
> suppose seem more likely.
> It is notable that both John and Katherine seem to have been born
> before Richard's marriage, so there would have been no
embarrassment,
> or offence caused to his wife, in acknowledging them. According to
> the story, Richard of Eastwell was also born when Richard was
young,
> and was 16 at the time of Bosworth. However, there are problems
with
> this. Firstly, we are told in one version he was brought to the
> battlefield and to the King's tent, and then told to stay safe.
Now,
> at 16 he was old enough to fight; I can't see him being
acknowledged
> on the battlefield, anyway. He then flees and wanders around for
ages
> and then takes up as a mason's apprentice. Now, at 16 he was
already
> a bit old to be starting an apprenticeship. But the biggest problem
> is that apparently at the time Eastwell manor house was built this
> would make him already an old man, and so it isn't that likely he
was
> still working. So I suspect that if he was Richard's son he was a
lot
> younger than the story says. It doesn't make such good drama but is
> more plausible. The Hopper family believe he was a full brother of
> their ancestress Anne, who according to their story was born in the
> early 1480s. If there is any truth in either of these stories, then
I
> think the likeliest reason we hear nothing of these children during
> Richard's lifetime is that they were born after his marriage, and
> were very small when he died and so wouldn't have needed any
> provision other than some maintenance for the mother.
> Although the Hopper story claims that Anne was the child of a lady
> Richard brought down from Edinburgh to Kent, this seems a bit
> implausible too - why take her to Kent? Maybe the true story was
just
> that she was conceived when Richard came down that way after taking
> Edinburgh. I know he came down to London after the Scots campaign,
> but I don't know if he visited Kent; however, just suppose he did -
> why might he have done? Well, one reason might have been to visit
his
> daughter Katherine, whose mother was one of the Kent Hautes. It
seems
> to me it is not impossible that such visits may occasionally have
> resulted in, shall we say, a renewal of relations and the birth of
a
> couple of further children. That's a suspicion I have, but it is of
> course pure wild speculation.
> What are your thoughts?
> Marie

Hmmm. If this Richard Plantagenet of Kent was about 16 at the time
of Bosworth, he'd be about the same age as Richard's son John, whom
he did acknowledge, have with him at court, and give political
positions to. (You'd never know I'm a native speaker of English from
my grammar, would you?) So why would Richard acknowledge and
evidently treasure one bastard son but not another of about the same
age?

Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was fathered
by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at the
time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because they
were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her husband
unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to all
for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common Law,
a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the husband's
despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
Montague? And I think that principle figured in the Great Berkeley
Inheritance lawsuit that went on for years and years and years.
Anyway that's one possibility, but it begs the question of how an
unacknowledged bastard would end up with his biological father's
surname instead of his legal father's. Maybe he just took it, fait
accompli, after Richard's death. But would hat have been a smart
hing to do with Henry VII on the throne? Plantagenets didn't
exactlythrive underhim.

Having any son brought to the frontlines just before a battle doesn't
sound real sensible to me, and acknowledging him then and there and
giving him a ring to prove it sounds even less sensible, what with
potential spies lurking around. Wouldn't that news have been
interesting to Henry Tudor. Evidently John got swept up and
imprisoned sometime after the battle...why not this Richard too?
(Bringing the boy to the front and then telling him to stay safe
strikes me as a definite "huh?")

If he had been born, instead, in the early 1480s he would have been
little more than a toddler, at best, at the time of Bosworth. I'd
think that would make the story of the pre-battle visit still less
likely.

Then there's the possibility that he was some other Plantagenet's
bastard son. There had been Plantagenets around for several
centuries and there were many branches of the family tree. As we've
all scratched our heads over, there was very limited number of first
names in circulation, and Richard was not the most common, but not
unusual.

I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this Richard
Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years later
someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.

Katy

> Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was
fathered
> by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at the
> time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because
they
> were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
> sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
> explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her
husband
> unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to
all
> for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common
Law,
> a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the
husband's
> despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
> situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
> Montague?

No, this is a REBUTTABLE presumption - it applies unless there is
evidence to show that the husband cannot be the father. The obvious
example is that at the time the child must have been conceived he was
away from his wife and could not have had sexual relations with her
(and the common law would expect an absence of much more than the 2-3
weeks we have recently been arguing over in relation to Edward IV's
paternity!)

To my mind, if there is any truth in the story (and I'm inclined to
doubt it), the obvious explanation is that Richard of Eastwell was
conceived and born during Richard's marriage and therefore was a good
deal younger than 16 (10-11 would be more realistic as he would then
be too young to fight).

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was
> fathered
> > by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at
the
> > time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because
> they
> > were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
> > sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
> > explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her
> husband
> > unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to
> all
> > for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common
> Law,
> > a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the
> husband's
> > despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
> > situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
> > Montague?
>
> No, this is a REBUTTABLE presumption - it applies unless there is
> evidence to show that the husband cannot be the father. The obvious
> example is that at the time the child must have been conceived he
was
> away from his wife and could not have had sexual relations with her
> (and the common law would expect an absence of much more than the 2-
3
> weeks we have recently been arguing over in relation to Edward IV's
> paternity!)
>
> To my mind, if there is any truth in the story (and I'm inclined to
> doubt it), the obvious explanation is that Richard of Eastwell was
> conceived and born during Richard's marriage and therefore was a
good
> deal younger than 16 (10-11 would be more realistic as he would
then
> be too young to fight).
>
> Ann

Could well be. Like you, though, I tend to think the story hasn't
much to it.

(I changed the subject line of this post because we seem to have
roamed far from "Seventh Son".)

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> ---
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > It was in the correspondence section of Ricardian Bulletin,
Summer
> > 2003. It would be great if you joined the Society. Honestly, in
22
> > years I've never had a row with another member! I sometimes think
> > there's something about the email medium that makes for trigger-
> > happiness.
> >
> > Yes, and I'll raise a toast to July 6th.
> >
> > Don't know about Richard Plantegenet of Kent. Off the top of my
> head,
> > there really is an entry in the Eastwell burial register in
> December
> > 1550 which reads "Richard Plantagenet", but the first written
> > versions of his story don't come until much much later, by which
> time
> > the manor had changed hands. I suppose if he wasn't a hoaxter
then
> he
> > much have been a bastard member of the House of York, and if he
was
> > Edward's he woudn't have had to live so obscurely. Which only
> leaves
> > Clarence and Richard. Since he was named Richard, then Richard
does
> I
> > suppose seem more likely.
> > It is notable that both John and Katherine seem to have been born
> > before Richard's marriage, so there would have been no
> embarrassment,
> > or offence caused to his wife, in acknowledging them. According
to
> > the story, Richard of Eastwell was also born when Richard was
> young,
> > and was 16 at the time of Bosworth. However, there are problems
> with
> > this. Firstly, we are told in one version he was brought to the
> > battlefield and to the King's tent, and then told to stay safe.
> Now,
> > at 16 he was old enough to fight; I can't see him being
> acknowledged
> > on the battlefield, anyway. He then flees and wanders around for
> ages
> > and then takes up as a mason's apprentice. Now, at 16 he was
> already
> > a bit old to be starting an apprenticeship. But the biggest
problem
> > is that apparently at the time Eastwell manor house was built
this
> > would make him already an old man, and so it isn't that likely he
> was
> > still working. So I suspect that if he was Richard's son he was a
> lot
> > younger than the story says. It doesn't make such good drama but
is
> > more plausible. The Hopper family believe he was a full brother
of
> > their ancestress Anne, who according to their story was born in
the
> > early 1480s. If there is any truth in either of these stories,
then
> I
> > think the likeliest reason we hear nothing of these children
during
> > Richard's lifetime is that they were born after his marriage, and
> > were very small when he died and so wouldn't have needed any
> > provision other than some maintenance for the mother.
> > Although the Hopper story claims that Anne was the child of a
lady
> > Richard brought down from Edinburgh to Kent, this seems a bit
> > implausible too - why take her to Kent? Maybe the true story was
> just
> > that she was conceived when Richard came down that way after
taking
> > Edinburgh. I know he came down to London after the Scots
campaign,
> > but I don't know if he visited Kent; however, just suppose he
did -
> > why might he have done? Well, one reason might have been to visit
> his
> > daughter Katherine, whose mother was one of the Kent Hautes. It
> seems
> > to me it is not impossible that such visits may occasionally have
> > resulted in, shall we say, a renewal of relations and the birth
of
> a
> > couple of further children. That's a suspicion I have, but it is
of
> > course pure wild speculation.
> > What are your thoughts?
> > Marie
>
> Hmmm. If this Richard Plantagenet of Kent was about 16 at the time
> of Bosworth, he'd be about the same age as Richard's son John, whom
> he did acknowledge, have with him at court, and give political
> positions to. (You'd never know I'm a native speaker of English
from
> my grammar, would you?) So why would Richard acknowledge and
> evidently treasure one bastard son but not another of about the
same
> age?
>
> Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was
fathered
> by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at the
> time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because
they
> were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
> sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
> explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her
husband
> unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to
all
> for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common
Law,
> a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the
husband's
> despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
> situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
> Montague? And I think that principle figured in the Great Berkeley
> Inheritance lawsuit that went on for years and years and years.
> Anyway that's one possibility, but it begs the question of how an
> unacknowledged bastard would end up with his biological father's
> surname instead of his legal father's. Maybe he just took it, fait
> accompli, after Richard's death. But would hat have been a smart
> hing to do with Henry VII on the throne? Plantagenets didn't
> exactlythrive underhim.
>
> Having any son brought to the frontlines just before a battle
doesn't
> sound real sensible to me, and acknowledging him then and there and
> giving him a ring to prove it sounds even less sensible, what with
> potential spies lurking around. Wouldn't that news have been
> interesting to Henry Tudor. Evidently John got swept up and
> imprisoned sometime after the battle...why not this Richard too?
> (Bringing the boy to the front and then telling him to stay safe
> strikes me as a definite "huh?")
>
> If he had been born, instead, in the early 1480s he would have been
> little more than a toddler, at best, at the time of Bosworth. I'd
> think that would make the story of the pre-battle visit still less
> likely.
>
> Then there's the possibility that he was some other Plantagenet's
> bastard son. There had been Plantagenets around for several
> centuries and there were many branches of the family tree. As
we've
> all scratched our heads over, there was very limited number of
first
> names in circulation, and Richard was not the most common, but not
> unusual.
>
> I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this Richard
> Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years
later
> someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.
>
> Katy

You mentioned that if this Richard had been oneof Edward IV's
bastards, he would not have been brought up in such obscurity, Marie.

My impression is that Edward didn't do much for his bastards. Am I
wrong? There seems to be more conjecture about the names and number
of his illegitimate children (than in Richard's case) and if I recall
correctly he did not mention them or make any provision for them in
his will.

Wasn't Elizabeth Wayte Lucy also from a Kentish famly? I was
thinking that Edward might have spent some time in Kent and done some
grazing in more than one pasture.

I know you have good reasons for eliminating Edward as father of this
Richard, but would you go over them for me?

By the way, do we know of any bastard children of George's?

Katy

must be War Walks?
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:07:03 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seventh Son
>
> Which video - it's at work, all I can remember is it's an hour long,
> and the man with grey hair who does the BBC battles stuff is the
> presenter. Or maybe it's half an hour long? Oh I dunno - it's been a
> long day! :-(
>
>
>
> 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 , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> must be War Walks?
> Paul

Could well be. I also have some on the wars of the Roses which we
watch if we have time, to set the scene or revise. Today we were
clearing the stock cupboard and I came across the Trial of Richard
III, so that is coming home with me to see if it of any help! I have
the book, but it may not be the same trial.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> ---
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > It was in the correspondence section of Ricardian Bulletin,
Summer
> > 2003. It would be great if you joined the Society. Honestly, in
22
> > years I've never had a row with another member! I sometimes think
> > there's something about the email medium that makes for trigger-
> > happiness.
> >
> > Yes, and I'll raise a toast to July 6th.
> >
> > Don't know about Richard Plantegenet of Kent. Off the top of my
> head,
> > there really is an entry in the Eastwell burial register in
> December
> > 1550 which reads "Richard Plantagenet", but the first written
> > versions of his story don't come until much much later, by which
> time
> > the manor had changed hands. I suppose if he wasn't a hoaxter
then
> he
> > much have been a bastard member of the House of York, and if he
was
> > Edward's he woudn't have had to live so obscurely. Which only
> leaves
> > Clarence and Richard. Since he was named Richard, then Richard
does
> I
> > suppose seem more likely.
> > It is notable that both John and Katherine seem to have been born
> > before Richard's marriage, so there would have been no
> embarrassment,
> > or offence caused to his wife, in acknowledging them. According
to
> > the story, Richard of Eastwell was also born when Richard was
> young,
> > and was 16 at the time of Bosworth. However, there are problems
> with
> > this. Firstly, we are told in one version he was brought to the
> > battlefield and to the King's tent, and then told to stay safe.
> Now,
> > at 16 he was old enough to fight; I can't see him being
> acknowledged
> > on the battlefield, anyway. He then flees and wanders around for
> ages
> > and then takes up as a mason's apprentice. Now, at 16 he was
> already
> > a bit old to be starting an apprenticeship. But the biggest
problem
> > is that apparently at the time Eastwell manor house was built
this
> > would make him already an old man, and so it isn't that likely he
> was
> > still working. So I suspect that if he was Richard's son he was a
> lot
> > younger than the story says. It doesn't make such good drama but
is
> > more plausible. The Hopper family believe he was a full brother
of
> > their ancestress Anne, who according to their story was born in
the
> > early 1480s. If there is any truth in either of these stories,
then
> I
> > think the likeliest reason we hear nothing of these children
during
> > Richard's lifetime is that they were born after his marriage, and
> > were very small when he died and so wouldn't have needed any
> > provision other than some maintenance for the mother.
> > Although the Hopper story claims that Anne was the child of a
lady
> > Richard brought down from Edinburgh to Kent, this seems a bit
> > implausible too - why take her to Kent? Maybe the true story was
> just
> > that she was conceived when Richard came down that way after
taking
> > Edinburgh. I know he came down to London after the Scots
campaign,
> > but I don't know if he visited Kent; however, just suppose he
did -
> > why might he have done? Well, one reason might have been to visit
> his
> > daughter Katherine, whose mother was one of the Kent Hautes. It
> seems
> > to me it is not impossible that such visits may occasionally have
> > resulted in, shall we say, a renewal of relations and the birth
of
> a
> > couple of further children. That's a suspicion I have, but it is
of
> > course pure wild speculation.
> > What are your thoughts?
> > Marie
>
> Hmmm. If this Richard Plantagenet of Kent was about 16 at the time
> of Bosworth, he'd be about the same age as Richard's son John, whom
> he did acknowledge, have with him at court, and give political
> positions to. (You'd never know I'm a native speaker of English
from
> my grammar, would you?) So why would Richard acknowledge and
> evidently treasure one bastard son but not another of about the
same
> age?

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons I said that I believe the story
may be incorrect regarding his age. If he were a lot younger
everything else would fit.

>
> Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was
fathered
> by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at the
> time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because
they
> were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
> sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
> explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her
husband
> unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to
all
> for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common
Law,
> a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the
husband's
> despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
> situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
> Montague? And I think that principle figured in the Great Berkeley
> Inheritance lawsuit that went on for years and years and years.
> Anyway that's one possibility, but it begs the question of how an
> unacknowledged bastard would end up with his biological father's
> surname instead of his legal father's. Maybe he just took it, fait
> accompli, after Richard's death. But would hat have been a smart
> hing to do with Henry VII on the throne? Plantagenets didn't
> exactlythrive underhim.
>
> Having any son brought to the frontlines just before a battle
doesn't
> sound real sensible to me, and acknowledging him then and there and
> giving him a ring to prove it sounds even less sensible, what with
> potential spies lurking around. Wouldn't that news have been
> interesting to Henry Tudor. Evidently John got swept up and
> imprisoned sometime after the battle...why not this Richard too?
> (Bringing the boy to the front and then telling him to stay safe
> strikes me as a definite "huh?")

Well, as I've said, this goes with the story that he was 16 at the
time, and I think all that is certainly later fabrication.
>
> If he had been born, instead, in the early 1480s he would have been
> little more than a toddler, at best, at the time of Bosworth. I'd
> think that would make the story of the pre-battle visit still less
> likely.

Exactly, but then I've said I don''t believe it so I don't find that
a problem.
>
> Then there's the possibility that he was some other Plantagenet's
> bastard son. There had been Plantagenets around for several
> centuries and there were many branches of the family tree. As
we've
> all scratched our heads over, there was very limited number of
first
> names in circulation, and Richard was not the most common, but not
> unusual.

Bastard lines did not go on calling themselves Plantagenet over
successive generations. In factm the bastards themselves were not
usually called Plantagenet. Katherine probably only got the honour
because she was a girl and going to lose her name by marriage anyway.
John is alsways referred to as just John of Gloucester or John of
Pontefract. This man was buried as Plantagenet because the vicar,
knowing his identity, thought he had a right to the name. So I think
this man has HIMSELF to be the bastard son of a member of the House
of Plantagenet. And that rules out Beauforts, Tudors, Staffords, de
la Poles and all the other lines claiming descent from Edward III
which ddid not bear the surname. I think there was only the House of
York, which as I say means Clarence and Richard.

>
> I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this Richard
> Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years
later
> someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.

Well, as there were so few Plantagenets around, I think any
Plantagenet's son would be romantic. And I personally can't think of
many alternative candidates for the father.
Marie

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > ---
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It was in the correspondence section of Ricardian Bulletin,
> Summer
> > > 2003. It would be great if you joined the Society. Honestly, in
> 22
> > > years I've never had a row with another member! I sometimes
think
> > > there's something about the email medium that makes for trigger-
> > > happiness.
> > >
> > > Yes, and I'll raise a toast to July 6th.
> > >
> > > Don't know about Richard Plantegenet of Kent. Off the top of my
> > head,
> > > there really is an entry in the Eastwell burial register in
> > December
> > > 1550 which reads "Richard Plantagenet", but the first written
> > > versions of his story don't come until much much later, by
which
> > time
> > > the manor had changed hands. I suppose if he wasn't a hoaxter
> then
> > he
> > > much have been a bastard member of the House of York, and if he
> was
> > > Edward's he woudn't have had to live so obscurely. Which only
> > leaves
> > > Clarence and Richard. Since he was named Richard, then Richard
> does
> > I
> > > suppose seem more likely.
> > > It is notable that both John and Katherine seem to have been
born
> > > before Richard's marriage, so there would have been no
> > embarrassment,
> > > or offence caused to his wife, in acknowledging them. According
> to
> > > the story, Richard of Eastwell was also born when Richard was
> > young,
> > > and was 16 at the time of Bosworth. However, there are problems
> > with
> > > this. Firstly, we are told in one version he was brought to the
> > > battlefield and to the King's tent, and then told to stay safe.
> > Now,
> > > at 16 he was old enough to fight; I can't see him being
> > acknowledged
> > > on the battlefield, anyway. He then flees and wanders around
for
> > ages
> > > and then takes up as a mason's apprentice. Now, at 16 he was
> > already
> > > a bit old to be starting an apprenticeship. But the biggest
> problem
> > > is that apparently at the time Eastwell manor house was built
> this
> > > would make him already an old man, and so it isn't that likely
he
> > was
> > > still working. So I suspect that if he was Richard's son he was
a
> > lot
> > > younger than the story says. It doesn't make such good drama
but
> is
> > > more plausible. The Hopper family believe he was a full brother
> of
> > > their ancestress Anne, who according to their story was born in
> the
> > > early 1480s. If there is any truth in either of these stories,
> then
> > I
> > > think the likeliest reason we hear nothing of these children
> during
> > > Richard's lifetime is that they were born after his marriage,
and
> > > were very small when he died and so wouldn't have needed any
> > > provision other than some maintenance for the mother.
> > > Although the Hopper story claims that Anne was the child of a
> lady
> > > Richard brought down from Edinburgh to Kent, this seems a bit
> > > implausible too - why take her to Kent? Maybe the true story
was
> > just
> > > that she was conceived when Richard came down that way after
> taking
> > > Edinburgh. I know he came down to London after the Scots
> campaign,
> > > but I don't know if he visited Kent; however, just suppose he
> did -
> > > why might he have done? Well, one reason might have been to
visit
> > his
> > > daughter Katherine, whose mother was one of the Kent Hautes. It
> > seems
> > > to me it is not impossible that such visits may occasionally
have
> > > resulted in, shall we say, a renewal of relations and the birth
> of
> > a
> > > couple of further children. That's a suspicion I have, but it
is
> of
> > > course pure wild speculation.
> > > What are your thoughts?
> > > Marie
> >
> > Hmmm. If this Richard Plantagenet of Kent was about 16 at the
time
> > of Bosworth, he'd be about the same age as Richard's son John,
whom
> > he did acknowledge, have with him at court, and give political
> > positions to. (You'd never know I'm a native speaker of English
> from
> > my grammar, would you?) So why would Richard acknowledge and
> > evidently treasure one bastard son but not another of about the
> same
> > age?
> >
> > Well, maybe this Richard was not acknowledged because he was
> fathered
> > by Richard, all right, but born to a woman who was married at
the
> > time. (Presuming John and Katherine were acknowledged because
> they
> > were born to widows or otherwise unmarried women.) That doesn't
> > sound much like Richard to me, but there could have been an
> > explanation. Maybe she thought she was a widow but then her
> husband
> > unexpectedly turned up alive...it could have been embarrassing to
> all
> > for Richard to acknowledge the baby as his. Besides, by Common
> Law,
> > a child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the
> husband's
> > despite any evidence to the contrary...wasn't that part of the
> > situation involving Joan of Kent and her messy annulment from
> > Montague? And I think that principle figured in the Great
Berkeley
> > Inheritance lawsuit that went on for years and years and years.
> > Anyway that's one possibility, but it begs the question of how an
> > unacknowledged bastard would end up with his biological father's
> > surname instead of his legal father's. Maybe he just took it,
fait
> > accompli, after Richard's death. But would hat have been a smart
> > hing to do with Henry VII on the throne? Plantagenets didn't
> > exactlythrive underhim.
> >
> > Having any son brought to the frontlines just before a battle
> doesn't
> > sound real sensible to me, and acknowledging him then and there
and
> > giving him a ring to prove it sounds even less sensible, what
with
> > potential spies lurking around. Wouldn't that news have been
> > interesting to Henry Tudor. Evidently John got swept up and
> > imprisoned sometime after the battle...why not this Richard too?
> > (Bringing the boy to the front and then telling him to stay safe
> > strikes me as a definite "huh?")
> >
> > If he had been born, instead, in the early 1480s he would have
been
> > little more than a toddler, at best, at the time of Bosworth. I'd
> > think that would make the story of the pre-battle visit still
less
> > likely.
> >
> > Then there's the possibility that he was some other Plantagenet's
> > bastard son. There had been Plantagenets around for several
> > centuries and there were many branches of the family tree. As
> we've
> > all scratched our heads over, there was very limited number of
> first
> > names in circulation, and Richard was not the most common, but
not
> > unusual.
> >
> > I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this
Richard
> > Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years
> later
> > someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.
> >
> > Katy
>
> You mentioned that if this Richard had been oneof Edward IV's
> bastards, he would not have been brought up in such obscurity,
Marie.
>
> My impression is that Edward didn't do much for his bastards. Am I
> wrong? There seems to be more conjecture about the names and
number
> of his illegitimate children (than in Richard's case) and if I
recall
> correctly he did not mention them or make any provision for them in
> his will.
>
> Wasn't Elizabeth Wayte Lucy also from a Kentish famly? I was
> thinking that Edward might have spent some time in Kent and done
some
> grazing in more than one pasture.

No, she came from Hampshire, and the Lucys, the family she married
into, belonged to Warwickshire.
>
> I know you have good reasons for eliminating Edward as father of
this
> Richard, but would you go over them for me?

I agree Edward didn't seem to have done a lot for his bastards, but
they do seem to have been able to make their identity public.
Hammond's recent article. Hammond's recent article identifies five,
two of whom ended up with titles. Another attended Elizabeth
Woodville''s funeral, and the other two girls used Yorkist tinctures
and devices in their coats of arms. This Richard Plantagenet seems to
have kept his identity pretty secret during his lifetime. Of course,
it just possible he was Edward's even so.

> By the way, do we know of any bastard children of George's?

Not so far as I know.

Personally, assuming there was a Richard Plantagenet I think there
has to be SOMETHING in the story, even if it had got overdramatised
by the time it was first committed to print. The alternative
explanation is that the Vicar got bored whilst writing up the copy of
60 years of baptisms, marriages & burials and slipped in the name for
fun - though whether one would actually be inclined to put in a
Richard Plantagenet for fun in a document you've just been ordered to
produce by the Tudor state, I'm not sure.

I must say, before I looked at the story again I was inclined to
dismiss it. But the burial entry is the sticking point.

Marie
>

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > Which video - it's at work, all I can remember is it's an hour
> long,
> > and the man with grey hair who does the BBC battles stuff is the
> > presenter. Or maybe it's half an hour long? Oh I dunno - it's
been
> a
> > long day! :-(
>
> Speaking of the Stanleys, one source I read indicated that Thomas
and
> William may have been twins. Does anyone know anything about that?
>
> I'm interested in twins in history, and was even before I had twins
> of my own. (Prenatal influence?) I know of the Beaumont twins, of
> whom Robert became the next Earl of Beaumont, but I'd be interested
> in learning of any others oin our favorite era.

I've heard of two pairs in the 15th century. Margaret of Anjou had a
younger twin brother and sister, Nicholas and Yolande. And James Earl
of Douglas who fled to the English court in 1455 had a twin brother
Archibald. We know they were twins because after their elder brother,
the previous earl, had been murdered by James II (personally, in the
royal palace, during an audience, no less), the mother and the women
who'd attended her during the delivery were interviewed to determine
which one was the heir (ie which one was born first).
Marie

>
> Bastard lines did not go on calling themselves Plantagenet over
> successive generations. In factm the bastards themselves were not
> usually called Plantagenet. Katherine probably only got the honour
> because she was a girl and going to lose her name by marriage
anyway.
> John is alsways referred to as just John of Gloucester or John of
> Pontefract. This man was buried as Plantagenet because the vicar,
> knowing his identity, thought he had a right to the name. So I
think
> this man has HIMSELF to be the bastard son of a member of the House
> of Plantagenet. And that rules out Beauforts, Tudors, Staffords, de
> la Poles and all the other lines claiming descent from Edward III
> which ddid not bear the surname. I think there was only the House
of
> York, which as I say means Clarence and Richard.
>
> >
> > I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this
Richard
> > Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years
> later
> > someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.
>
> Well, as there were so few Plantagenets around, I think any
> Plantagenet's son would be romantic. And I personally can't think
of
> many alternative candidates for the father

>Marie

Were there that few Plantagenets around at the time? Eight or ten
years ago I was deeply into research and could juggle these names and
dates in my head but now they keep falling to the floor and rolling
under the furniture. I was thinking of Edward III's numerous sons
but not taking into account where their lines went. As you pointed
out, that narrows the possibilities.

So what do you think? Was he genuine?

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > > Which video - it's at work, all I can remember is it's an hour
> > long,
> > > and the man with grey hair who does the BBC battles stuff is
the
> > > presenter. Or maybe it's half an hour long? Oh I dunno - it's
> been
> > a
> > > long day! :-(
> >
> > Speaking of the Stanleys, one source I read indicated that Thomas
> and
> > William may have been twins. Does anyone know anything about
that?
> >
> > I'm interested in twins in history, and was even before I had
twins
> > of my own. (Prenatal influence?) I know of the Beaumont twins,
of
> > whom Robert became the next Earl of Beaumont, but I'd be
interested
> > in learning of any others oin our favorite era.
>
> I've heard of two pairs in the 15th century. Margaret of Anjou had
a
> younger twin brother and sister, Nicholas and Yolande. And James
Earl
> of Douglas who fled to the English court in 1455 had a twin brother
> Archibald. We know they were twins because after their elder
brother,
> the previous earl, had been murdered by James II (personally, in
the
> royal palace, during an audience, no less), the mother and the
women
> who'd attended her during the delivery were interviewed to
determine
> which one was the heir (ie which one was born first).
> Marie

Thank you, I'll add them to my list. One biography of Mary Queen of
Scots that I read said that she miscarried twins after her wild
attempted ride to freedom. One of her "hosts" wrote a letter saying
she had miscarried a baby, and another crossed it out and wrote "two
babies".

Katy

James II of Scots, born 16th October 1430, was the younger of twins,
his brother, Alexander, having lived just long enough to be baptised.

Ann

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Bastard lines did not go on calling themselves Plantagenet over
> > successive generations. In factm the bastards themselves were not
> > usually called Plantagenet. Katherine probably only got the
honour
> > because she was a girl and going to lose her name by marriage
> anyway.
> > John is alsways referred to as just John of Gloucester or John of
> > Pontefract. This man was buried as Plantagenet because the vicar,
> > knowing his identity, thought he had a right to the name. So I
> think
> > this man has HIMSELF to be the bastard son of a member of the
House
> > of Plantagenet. And that rules out Beauforts, Tudors, Staffords,
de
> > la Poles and all the other lines claiming descent from Edward III
> > which ddid not bear the surname. I think there was only the House
> of
> > York, which as I say means Clarence and Richard.
> >
> > >
> > > I tend to thik the latter theory is more likely. That this
> Richard
> > > Plantagenet of Kent was some other Plantagenet's son, and years
> > later
> > > someone saw the name and jumped to a romantic conclusion.
> >
> > Well, as there were so few Plantagenets around, I think any
> > Plantagenet's son would be romantic. And I personally can't think
> of
> > many alternative candidates for the father
>
> >Marie
>
> Were there that few Plantagenets around at the time? Eight or ten
> years ago I was deeply into research and could juggle these names
and
> dates in my head but now they keep falling to the floor and rolling
> under the furniture. I was thinking of Edward III's numerous sons
> but not taking into account where their lines went. As you pointed
> out, that narrows the possibilities.
>
> So what do you think? Was he genuine?
>
> Katy

Well, two things. One, as I understand it, Plantagenent was not
originally regarded as a surname as such, and so fell out of use
after the first lot. The first person to use it AS A SURNAME was
Richard Duke of York.

Secondly, to take Edward's sons:
1. The Black Prince had only Richard II, died without issue.
2. Lionel of Clarence had daughter Phillippa who married a Mortimer
3. John of Gaunt. Only son I know of from first two marriages was
Henry IV. Children of third marriage born before same and known as
Beaufort. Henry IV had four sons: Henry V, whose line died out with
Edward of Lancaster, then John Duke of Bedford, Thomas of Clarence
and Humphrey of Gloucester, who all died without issue. Humphrey did
have one illegitimate son, Arthur, but he was executed as a young
man. Besides none of the Lancasters used the Plantagenet surname.
4. Edmund of Langley. He had two sons, Edward Duke of York (died
without issue), and Richard Earl of Cambridge, whose only son was
Richard Duke of York.
5. Edward of Woodstock. He had one son and four daughters. The son,
Humphrey, I believe died without issue.

So, on both counts we are reduced to just the House of York.

That this young man was Edward's or Clarence's is possible, but it
has to be said that there is no evidence to favour this view over his
alleged paternity by Richard. The difficulties with his non-
recognition by Richard are easily resolved by assuming that he was
more like 6 than 16 at the time of Bosworth. The age stated in the
story does not in any case fit in at all well with the claim that he
worked on the building of Eastwell Manor.

My real concern is that this man may have been a hoaxter. There are
plenty of obscure but educated folks who fall on hard times, and this
may have been one such who lived by his wits and noticed or learned
that the Moyles were sympathetic to the late king.

So I really don't know. The fact is there is not enough evidence to
prove or disprove this story, but I think that if he really was of
Plantagent parentage then the candidates are very few.

There is of course, a natural reluctance by Ricardians to entertain
the idea that Richard may have had illegitimate children after his
marrriage, but I think we should keep level heads on that one. The
Kent connection would in any case suggest that he would not have been
exactly sleeping around in the Edward sense but perhaps succumbing to
temptation with an old love. I know that would mean that Anne Neville
wasn't the only woman he ever had feelings for, but perhaps it would
reflect better on him if he had a genuine relationship with
Katherine's mother than otherwise.

By the by, I often wonder if the reason why Edward's sexual behaviour
didn't lead to more acknowledged children was that by all accounts
his girls got passed around a bit. Perhaps paternity was not always
easy to establish.
Marie

Marie said:

One, as I understand it, Plantagenent was not
> originally regarded as a surname as such, and so fell out of use
> after the first lot. The first person to use it AS A SURNAME was
> Richard Duke of York.
>
> Secondly, to take Edward's sons:
> 1. The Black Prince had only Richard II, died without issue.
> 2. Lionel of Clarence had daughter Phillippa who married a Mortimer
> 3. John of Gaunt. Only son I know of from first two marriages was
> Henry IV. Children of third marriage born before same and known as
> Beaufort. Henry IV had four sons: Henry V, whose line died out with
> Edward of Lancaster, then John Duke of Bedford, Thomas of Clarence
> and Humphrey of Gloucester, who all died without issue. Humphrey
did
> have one illegitimate son, Arthur, but he was executed as a young
> man. Besides none of the Lancasters used the Plantagenet surname.
> 4. Edmund of Langley. He had two sons, Edward Duke of York (died
> without issue), and Richard Earl of Cambridge, whose only son was
> Richard Duke of York.
> 5. Edward of Woodstock. He had one son and four daughters. The son,
> Humphrey, I believe died without issue.
>

The youngest son was actually THOMAS of Woodstock, created Earl of
Buckingham by his father and subsequently Duke of Gloucester by
Richard II. He died in Calais in 1398 while in Richard II's custody
(probably by murder). His only son was indeed called Humphrey and
died unmarried and childless in 1399 aged about 14 (once again I'm at
work with no references to hand). Humphrey of Gloucester and the
future Henry V were taken by Richard II on his expedition to Ireland
in 1399, and Humphrey died in Ireland or soon after his return,
apparently of natural causes.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie said:
>
> One, as I understand it, Plantagenent was not
> > originally regarded as a surname as such, and so fell out of use
> > after the first lot. The first person to use it AS A SURNAME was
> > Richard Duke of York.
> >
> > Secondly, to take Edward's sons:
> > 1. The Black Prince had only Richard II, died without issue.
> > 2. Lionel of Clarence had daughter Phillippa who married a
Mortimer
> > 3. John of Gaunt. Only son I know of from first two marriages was
> > Henry IV. Children of third marriage born before same and known
as
> > Beaufort. Henry IV had four sons: Henry V, whose line died out
with
> > Edward of Lancaster, then John Duke of Bedford, Thomas of
Clarence
> > and Humphrey of Gloucester, who all died without issue. Humphrey
> did
> > have one illegitimate son, Arthur, but he was executed as a young
> > man. Besides none of the Lancasters used the Plantagenet surname.
> > 4. Edmund of Langley. He had two sons, Edward Duke of York (died
> > without issue), and Richard Earl of Cambridge, whose only son was
> > Richard Duke of York.
> > 5. Edward of Woodstock. He had one son and four daughters. The
son,
> > Humphrey, I believe died without issue.
> >
>
> The youngest son was actually THOMAS of Woodstock, created Earl of
> Buckingham by his father and subsequently Duke of Gloucester by
> Richard II. He died in Calais in 1398 while in Richard II's custody
> (probably by murder). His only son was indeed called Humphrey and
> died unmarried and childless in 1399 aged about 14 (once again I'm
at
> work with no references to hand). Humphrey of Gloucester and the
> future Henry V were taken by Richard II on his expedition to
Ireland
> in 1399, and Humphrey died in Ireland or soon after his return,
> apparently of natural causes.
>
> Ann

Sorry, Ann, just a slip. I do actually know the name but I was having
to write all this up quickly, but hope I haven't misinformed anybody.
The result for the RP paternity case is still the same.

Marie

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> James II of Scots, born 16th October 1430, was the younger of
twins,
> his brother, Alexander, having lived just long enough to be
baptised.
>
> Ann

The Beamont twins, Waleran and Robert, earls of Meulan and Leicester.

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> James II of Scots, born 16th October 1430, was the younger of
twins,
> his brother, Alexander, having lived just long enough to be
baptised.
>
> Ann

Thanks, Ann. My list is growing.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > James II of Scots, born 16th October 1430, was the younger of
> twins,
> > his brother, Alexander, having lived just long enough to be
> baptised.
> >
> > Ann
>
> The Beamont twins, Waleran and Robert, earls of Meulan and
Leicester.

I knew of those two, though I couldn't remember Waleran's name.
However I misremembered that Robert became Earl of Beaumont.

Katy

> >
> > The youngest son was actually THOMAS of Woodstock, created Earl
of
> > Buckingham by his father and subsequently Duke of Gloucester by
> > Richard II. He died in Calais in 1398 while in Richard II's
custody
> > (probably by murder). His only son was indeed called Humphrey and
> > died unmarried and childless in 1399 aged about 14 (once again
I'm
> at
> > work with no references to hand). Humphrey of Gloucester and the
> > future Henry V were taken by Richard II on his expedition to
> Ireland
> > in 1399, and Humphrey died in Ireland or soon after his return,
> > apparently of natural causes.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Sorry, Ann, just a slip. I do actually know the name but I was
having
> to write all this up quickly, but hope I haven't misinformed
anybody.
> The result for the RP paternity case is still the same.
>
> Marie


That's what I thought.

Ann