Richard's birth again

To go back to earlier discussion with Katy about whether or not Richard
might have been damaged as the result of a difficult birth.

I mentioned that from what I had read (in last biography of Henry VI, I
think, of perhaps Johnson's bio of York), that the then recently
discovered letter from Cecily Neville to Margaret of Anjou in 1453
suggested she was still not recovered from the birth.

Well, yesterday at the Battlefield Centre I found the full text of the
letter in Anne Crawford's "Letters of Medieval Women". So I bought a
copy (no wonder I never have any money). And it seems that the above
interpretation is quite incorrect. Although childbearing (Margaret's own
pregnancy) is a major topic of the letter, the "labour" from which
Cecily was not recovered is not Richard's birth at all, but the lobbying
of Margaret she had done in April 1453 on behalf of her (at the time)
disgraced husband York:

"Beseecheth with all humbleness and reverence possible your lowly
obeisant servant and bedeswoman, Cecily Duchess of York, that where, of
the plenty of your good and benign grace it pleased thereunto in your
coming from that blessed, gracious and devout pilgrimage of Our Lady of
Walsingham to suffer the coming of my simple person - replete with such
immeasurable sorrow and heaviness as I doubt not will of the continuance
thereof diminish and abridge my days, as it does my worldly joy and
comfort - unto your most worthy and most high presence, whereunto then
full full benignly to receive my supplication to the same, made for your
humble true man and servant, my lord my husband. . . . Whereunto I
should for the same have without sloth or discontinuance and with
undelayed diligence have sued, nor had by the disease and infirmity that
since my being in your highness' presence hath grown and groweth, upon
me, caused not only the encumbrous labour, to me full painful and uneasy
God knoweth, that then I took upon me, but also the continuance of the
sorrow of my said lord and husband. . . . Wherein I beseech your said
Highness that my said labour and pain may not be taken frivolously nor
unfruitfully, but the more agreeable for my said lord unto your said
good grace."

So we're left with no contemporary evidence at all of a difficult birth.

Marie

PS. The Battlefield Centre shop had lots of Ricardian books for sale,
but not surprisingly (if a bit naughtily), not Michael Jones' book.

> From: "marie walsh" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:49:44 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Richard's birth again
>
> So we're left with no contemporary evidence at all of a difficult birth.

Except of course the ambiguous ŒRichard liveth yet¹ which may well be, and
probably is, a comment on contemporary life expectancy rather than any
individual birthing problems.
So Richard wasn¹t two years in the womb and born with teeth and hair after
all!
Surprise surprise! (Sorry Sir Thomas you was wrong!)
Paul
not in the least bit surprised.
Oh and thank you Marie for posting that letter, and for spending the money
on the book in the first place.

--- In , "marie walsh"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> To go back to earlier discussion with Katy about whether or not
Richard
> might have been damaged as the result of a difficult birth.
>
> I mentioned that from what I had read (in last biography of Henry
VI, I
> think, of perhaps Johnson's bio of York), that the then recently
> discovered letter from Cecily Neville to Margaret of Anjou in 1453
> suggested she was still not recovered from the birth.
>
> Well, yesterday at the Battlefield Centre I found the full text of
the
> letter in Anne Crawford's "Letters of Medieval Women". So I bought a
> copy (no wonder I never have any money). And it seems that the above
> interpretation is quite incorrect. Although childbearing
(Margaret's own
> pregnancy) is a major topic of the letter, the "labour" from which
> Cecily was not recovered is not Richard's birth at all, but the
lobbying
> of Margaret she had done in April 1453 on behalf of her (at the
time)
> disgraced husband York:
>
> "Beseecheth with all humbleness and reverence possible your lowly
> obeisant servant and bedeswoman, Cecily Duchess of York, that
where, of
> the plenty of your good and benign grace it pleased thereunto in
your
> coming from that blessed, gracious and devout pilgrimage of Our
Lady of
> Walsingham to suffer the coming of my simple person - replete with
such
> immeasurable sorrow and heaviness as I doubt not will of the
continuance
> thereof diminish and abridge my days, as it does my worldly joy and
> comfort - unto your most worthy and most high presence, whereunto
then
> full full benignly to receive my supplication to the same, made for
your
> humble true man and servant, my lord my husband. . . . Whereunto I
> should for the same have without sloth or discontinuance and with
> undelayed diligence have sued, nor had by the disease and infirmity
that
> since my being in your highness' presence hath grown and groweth,
upon
> me, caused not only the encumbrous labour, to me full painful and
uneasy
> God knoweth, that then I took upon me, but also the continuance of
the
> sorrow of my said lord and husband. . . . Wherein I beseech your
said
> Highness that my said labour and pain may not be taken frivolously
nor
> unfruitfully, but the more agreeable for my said lord unto your said
> good grace."
>
> So we're left with no contemporary evidence at all of a difficult
birth.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. The Battlefield Centre shop had lots of Ricardian books for
sale,
> but not surprisingly (if a bit naughtily), not Michael Jones' book.

Thank you, Marie. I'm interested in the subject, and the letter you
quoted does indeed clear up the udea that Cecily was talking about a
real birth.

It also points out another pet peeve of mine -- the accidental or
deliberate way historians have of quoting out of context, or of
changing meaning by means of ellipsis. I recall, though not very
clearly, so I am doing the same thing myself, a writer who quoted the
entire text of a document which other historians had used to
promulgate an idea about the betrayal of William Wallace. The
paragraph before the one usually quoted had given the full names of
the men mentioned, which the oft-qoted paragraph subsequently had
referred to as "the above-mentioned William etc" Through the magic
of ellipsis this had become "...William etc" which had morphed into
being cited as a definite, unquestioned reference to Wallace. She
had a rant about how if historians would bother to do original
research instead of merely cribbing from each other...the Fox Terrer
Syndrome, in other words.

Katy

Katy

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "marie walsh" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:49:44 +0100
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Richard's birth again
> >
> > So we're left with no contemporary evidence at all of a difficult
birth.
>
> Except of course the ambiguous ŒRichard liveth yet¹ which may well
be, and
> probably is, a comment on contemporary life expectancy rather than
any
> individual birthing problems.
> So Richard wasn¹t two years in the womb and born with teeth and
hair after
> all!
> Surprise surprise! (Sorry Sir Thomas you was wrong!)
> Paul
> not in the least bit surprised.
> Oh and thank you Marie for posting that letter, and for spending
the money
> on the book in the first place.


It's amazing how these interpretations stick - taking on a life of
their own. Reading Anne Crawford's introducation to the letter, I see
she is perpetuating it, viz: " "She [Cecily] also refers to her own
state of health, talking of her sickness and trouble, which probably
had a double meaning, first that she was physically unwell and
secondly that she was sick at heart because of her husband's
estrangement from the king. When she met the queen at Walsingham and
sued in person, she implies that she herself was pregnant and had
been ill since. The birth from which she had been slow to recover was
that of her youngest son, the future Richard III...."

Firstly, Cecily doesn't say she met the Queen at Walsingham [a
popular place of pilgrimage for women praying for a child], but that
she came to the Queen as the latter was "coming from" Walsingham.
Now, the queen seems to have visited Walsingham in April after
leaving Norwich (on 19th), and on her way back to London she is known
to have spent a night with Cecily at the York's manor of Hitchin.
Now, the Yorks had been at Fotheringhay at the time in question, and
Margaret's journey south is likely to have taken her through
Peterborough and Huntingdon - within 5-10 miles of Fotheringhay, in
fact - and my assumption would be that Cecily joined her on the road
as the Queen passed near, and then entertained her at Hitchin before
leaving the royal cortege again.
I can't myself see ANY suggestion in the letter that Cecily was
either at Walsingham in April or was pregnant when she met Margaret,
or that she claimed to have been ill as the result of her last
(childbirth) labour. Indeed, to have gone on about problems of that
nature in a letter which was in part designed to congratulate
Margaret on her own first pregnancy would have been rather
insensitive (particularly as she wanted Margaret's help).
It would be quite within the thinking of the age for Cecily to put
down physical illness to stress and heartache. And this is just what
she claims. I think Anne Crawford knows the case for Richard's birth
as the cause of Cecily's "disease" is a weak one, hence her
suggestion of "double meaning".

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: "marie walsh" <marie@r...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:49:44 +0100
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Richard's birth again
> > >
> > > So we're left with no contemporary evidence at all of a
difficult
> birth.
> >
> > Except of course the ambiguous ŒRichard liveth yet¹ which may
well
> be, and
> > probably is, a comment on contemporary life expectancy rather
than
> any
> > individual birthing problems.
> > So Richard wasn¹t two years in the womb and born with teeth and
> hair after
> > all!
> > Surprise surprise! (Sorry Sir Thomas you was wrong!)
> > Paul
> > not in the least bit surprised.
> > Oh and thank you Marie for posting that letter, and for spending
> the money
> > on the book in the first place.
>
>
> It's amazing how these interpretations stick - taking on a life of
> their own. Reading Anne Crawford's introducation to the letter, I
see
> she is perpetuating it, viz: " "She [Cecily] also refers to her own
> state of health, talking of her sickness and trouble, which
probably
> had a double meaning, first that she was physically unwell and
> secondly that she was sick at heart because of her husband's
> estrangement from the king. When she met the queen at Walsingham
and
> sued in person, she implies that she herself was pregnant and had
> been ill since. The birth from which she had been slow to recover
was
> that of her youngest son, the future Richard III...."
>
>
I realised after posting this last message how the confusion all
arose. I started wondering how anne Crawford thought that when she
met the queen Cecily had been pregnant, and that the birth she had
been slow to recover from was richard's, since Cecily is clearly
talking about the last time she saw Margaret, and that is known to
have been no later than April 1453 - 5 months after Richard's birth.
Also, if her infirmity was due to the birth, how come she claims to
have gone on getting worse since?

Clearly Ms Crawford (and the earlier writer?) didn't know of Cecily's
hosting the queen at Hitchin on her return from her East Anglian
progress, and imagined the meeting referred to had taken place in
1452 while Cecily was still carrying Richard. And the rest, as they
say, is history (or not history as in this case).

Helen Maurer in her recently published biography of Margaret of
Anjou, refers to this letter, dates it correctly, and significantly
doesn't mention Cecily going on about her own childbirth problems. So
hopefully this latest traditionalist myth will now bite the dust.
But, as I say, these things take on a life of their own.

As regards the "Richard liveth yet", I think Anne Sutton and Livia
Visser-Fuchs have written on this. Apparently this doesn't appear in
the original Latin. The English version, they say, was reworded in a
few places merely for the purposes of finding a rhyme. Also, when you
read it in context, it isn't significant. The children are all either
dead, or have something to be said of them. Or are not dead. There
was nothing else that could be said of richard at that point in time.

Marie

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:19:48 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's birth again
>
> As regards the "Richard liveth yet", I think Anne Sutton and Livia
> Visser-Fuchs have written on this. Apparently this doesn't appear in
> the original Latin. The English version, they say, was reworded in a
> few places merely for the purposes of finding a rhyme. Also, when you
> read it in context, it isn't significant. The children are all either
> dead, or have something to be said of them. Or are not dead. There
> was nothing else that could be said of richard at that point in time.
Absolutely.
Paul