Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 18:02:57
"In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
physicians that he did so."
This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
thought I want to work out.
I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
had caught her illness, probably TB.
If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
daughters.
her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
physicians that he did so."
This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
thought I want to work out.
I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
had caught her illness, probably TB.
If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
daughters.
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 18:29:48
So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited as fact.
I think all that stuff comes from those dreadful novels where you just know the author is convinced she's a reincarnation of Anne and makes her readers live through every one of her ghastly schoolgirl dreams of "how it would have been." Anne is always wilting in those books, drooping about looking pale and Richard is always carrying her tiny wasted body as if it was made of thistledown.
I want to see a novel about RII in which Anne Neville is a thigh-slapping 160lb hermaphrodite, with an attitude and muscles like cement. :)
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> "In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
> her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
> king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
> physicians that he did so."
>
> This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
> thought I want to work out.
>
> I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
> have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
> in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
> drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
> bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
> had caught her illness, probably TB.
>
> If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
> certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
> innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
> he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
> and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
> and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>
> Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
> his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
> assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
> not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
> him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
> better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>
> Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
> our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
> fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
> complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
> the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
> who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
> neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
> daughters.
>
I think all that stuff comes from those dreadful novels where you just know the author is convinced she's a reincarnation of Anne and makes her readers live through every one of her ghastly schoolgirl dreams of "how it would have been." Anne is always wilting in those books, drooping about looking pale and Richard is always carrying her tiny wasted body as if it was made of thistledown.
I want to see a novel about RII in which Anne Neville is a thigh-slapping 160lb hermaphrodite, with an attitude and muscles like cement. :)
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> "In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
> her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
> king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
> physicians that he did so."
>
> This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
> thought I want to work out.
>
> I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
> have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
> in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
> drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
> bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
> had caught her illness, probably TB.
>
> If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
> certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
> innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
> he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
> and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
> and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>
> Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
> his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
> assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
> not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
> him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
> better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>
> Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
> our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
> fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
> complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
> the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
> who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
> neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
> daughters.
>
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 18:44:40
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any
> evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited
> as fact.
Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any
> evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited
> as fact.
Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility.
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 18:44:43
From the Skeletal Remains & supported by the Cambridge experts comments last night on the television it seems likely that Richard was NOT abnormal UNTIL he was about ten years old, then developed possible T.B. of the Spine. His wife and son, sadly, appear likely to have died of Pulmonary T.B.
Whilst the nature of T.B. infection had to wait for Louis Pasteur [and others] four centuries later,
it seems reasonable to suppose that the infection processes that surrounded pulmonary T.B. were understood at least well enough for husbands & others to keep clear of spouses when they were at the advanced stages & coughing up the bright frothy blood that predicted the onset of death for so many of our ancestors at an all too early age.
I completely agree that his reported apparent reckless charge at Bosworth might well have had it's 'Genesis' in the loss of his wife & son together with the knowledge, he to, was ill.
Maybe a herd of 'T.B. Riddled Cows' grazed in the fields around Middleham
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:14
>Subject: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>"In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
>her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
>king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
>physicians that he did so."
>
>This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
>thought I want to work out.
>
>I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
>have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
>in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
>drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
>bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
>had caught her illness, probably TB.
>
>If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
>certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
>innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
>he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
>and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
>and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>
>Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
>his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
>assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
>not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
>him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
>better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>
>Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
>our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
>fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
>complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
>the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
>who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
>neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
>daughters.
>
>
>
>
>
Whilst the nature of T.B. infection had to wait for Louis Pasteur [and others] four centuries later,
it seems reasonable to suppose that the infection processes that surrounded pulmonary T.B. were understood at least well enough for husbands & others to keep clear of spouses when they were at the advanced stages & coughing up the bright frothy blood that predicted the onset of death for so many of our ancestors at an all too early age.
I completely agree that his reported apparent reckless charge at Bosworth might well have had it's 'Genesis' in the loss of his wife & son together with the knowledge, he to, was ill.
Maybe a herd of 'T.B. Riddled Cows' grazed in the fields around Middleham
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:14
>Subject: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>"In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
>her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
>king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
>physicians that he did so."
>
>This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
>thought I want to work out.
>
>I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
>have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
>in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
>drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
>bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
>had caught her illness, probably TB.
>
>If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
>certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
>innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
>he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
>and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
>and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>
>Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
>his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
>assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
>not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
>him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
>better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>
>Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
>our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
>fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
>complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
>the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
>who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
>neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
>daughters.
>
>
>
>
>
Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 18:51:58
I don't suppose there are any snippets or details that might lead to a diagnosis?
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
> Anne?]
>
>
> > So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any
> > evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited
> > as fact.
>
> Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
> and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
> if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
> TB was common.
>
> There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
> her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
> septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
> not I think in the areas she lived.
>
> I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
> all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
> wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
> possibility.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
> Anne?]
>
>
> > So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any
> > evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited
> > as fact.
>
> Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
> and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
> if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
> TB was common.
>
> There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
> her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
> septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
> not I think in the areas she lived.
>
> I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
> all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
> wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
> possibility.
>
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 18:59:29
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> From the Skeletal Remains & supported by the Cambridge experts comments
> last night on the television it seems likely that Richard was NOT abnormal
> UNTIL he was about ten years old, then developed possible T.B. of the
> Spine.
Hum. I'd have thought if he had TB that young though he would have been
generally sickly, and even if his bones show he was a skinny little chap and
not very muscular he must have at the least been as hardy as blackthorn,
considering the amount of riding and skirmishing he did, and that in an area
of harsh weather and open moors. Scoliosis can also be caused by muscle
imbalance due to injury - and they still haven't said whether the damage to
his right shoulder-blade and joint is post mortem or not - or just by the
spine growing faster than the muscles can keep up with.
Scoliosis would have put pressure on his ribcage, though, and perhaps
predisposed him to lung infections later on.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> From the Skeletal Remains & supported by the Cambridge experts comments
> last night on the television it seems likely that Richard was NOT abnormal
> UNTIL he was about ten years old, then developed possible T.B. of the
> Spine.
Hum. I'd have thought if he had TB that young though he would have been
generally sickly, and even if his bones show he was a skinny little chap and
not very muscular he must have at the least been as hardy as blackthorn,
considering the amount of riding and skirmishing he did, and that in an area
of harsh weather and open moors. Scoliosis can also be caused by muscle
imbalance due to injury - and they still haven't said whether the damage to
his right shoulder-blade and joint is post mortem or not - or just by the
spine growing faster than the muscles can keep up with.
Scoliosis would have put pressure on his ribcage, though, and perhaps
predisposed him to lung infections later on.
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 19:14:59
Well! This gives me a chance to share my pet theory about Anne's illness ;)
I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
(Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
"Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
"Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
(For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
A couple of other points to add:
"Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
"Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else… or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
*) From the Wiley library link above:
"Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed…
I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
(Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
"Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
"Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
(For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
A couple of other points to add:
"Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
"Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else… or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
*) From the Wiley library link above:
"Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed…
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 19:17:49
Anne must have died of something that probably excludes violence.
About one third of our ancestors may have had Pulmonary T.B., apart from regular visitations of the plague. Some explanation has to be considered for the premature death of so many younger people in the time before the nature of disease, particularly 'Communicable Disease' began to be understood.
We know that even Kings & Princes, though better fed and housed were NOT immune to these risks,
Edward of Woodstock [The Black Prince] Henry V and of course Prince Arthur are all examples of
KEY individuals in or around the 'Wars of the Roses', who, had they survived longer, might well have been expected to have affected our history to a major degree.
This is BEFORE we consider the effects of mental illness, brought into the Lancastrian line,
primarily by Katherine of Valois.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:29
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited as fact.
>
>I think all that stuff comes from those dreadful novels where you just know the author is convinced she's a reincarnation of Anne and makes her readers live through every one of her ghastly schoolgirl dreams of "how it would have been." Anne is always wilting in those books, drooping about looking pale and Richard is always carrying her tiny wasted body as if it was made of thistledown.
>
>I want to see a novel about RII in which Anne Neville is a thigh-slapping 160lb hermaphrodite, with an attitude and muscles like cement. :)
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> "In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
>> her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
>> king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
>> physicians that he did so."
>>
>> This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
>> thought I want to work out.
>>
>> I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
>> have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
>> in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
>> drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
>> bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
>> had caught her illness, probably TB.
>>
>> If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
>> certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
>> innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
>> he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
>> and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
>> and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>>
>> Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
>> his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
>> assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
>> not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
>> him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
>> better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>>
>> Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
>> our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
>> fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
>> complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
>> the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
>> who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
>> neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
>> daughters.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
About one third of our ancestors may have had Pulmonary T.B., apart from regular visitations of the plague. Some explanation has to be considered for the premature death of so many younger people in the time before the nature of disease, particularly 'Communicable Disease' began to be understood.
We know that even Kings & Princes, though better fed and housed were NOT immune to these risks,
Edward of Woodstock [The Black Prince] Henry V and of course Prince Arthur are all examples of
KEY individuals in or around the 'Wars of the Roses', who, had they survived longer, might well have been expected to have affected our history to a major degree.
This is BEFORE we consider the effects of mental illness, brought into the Lancastrian line,
primarily by Katherine of Valois.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:29
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>So far as I know there's no evidence to show Anne Neville had TB or any evidence to show she was sickly or frail, or any of the things often cited as fact.
>
>I think all that stuff comes from those dreadful novels where you just know the author is convinced she's a reincarnation of Anne and makes her readers live through every one of her ghastly schoolgirl dreams of "how it would have been." Anne is always wilting in those books, drooping about looking pale and Richard is always carrying her tiny wasted body as if it was made of thistledown.
>
>I want to see a novel about RII in which Anne Neville is a thigh-slapping 160lb hermaphrodite, with an attitude and muscles like cement. :)
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> "In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and
>> her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the
>> king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his
>> physicians that he did so."
>>
>> This isn't really a debating point or a request for information, just a
>> thought I want to work out.
>>
>> I take the point that somebody made a few days ago that it's possible to
>> have that alarming pink and white, blue-veined complexion which Richard has
>> in the early portraits, and not be ill. However, given Ann's fairly
>> drawn-out illness and the claim that his physicians barred Richard from her
>> bed, there is at the least a good chance that he looks that way because he
>> had caught her illness, probably TB.
>>
>> If he indeed had TB, then in the absence of modern antibiotics he was almost
>> certainly doomed: he would never have had the chance to be the great,
>> innovative king he had the potential to be. If he had not died at Bosworth
>> he would have died a few years later, probably after infecting his new wife
>> and any children they might have had, and the Tudor would still have come,
>> and John de la Pole would have had to try to deal with him.
>>
>> Given this, although seeing Richard's injuries is distressing I don't see
>> his death as especially tragic. The tragedy happened when he was infected,
>> assuming that he was, but if he was doomed anyway then dying in battle at
>> not quite 33, with such conspicuous courage that even his enemies praised
>> him and his bravery is remembered half a millenium later, was probably a
>> better fate than coughing his own lungs up at 35.
>>
>> Of course, as somebody said, we tend to assess the situation in the light of
>> our own experience, and I know that my take on this is coloured both by the
>> fact that a man I was madly in love with died of post-operative
>> complications at 31, and by a tragedy which occurred within my own family in
>> the Victorian era, when my great-grandmother took in and nursed a neighbour
>> who was dying of TB, and the disease progressively killed first the
>> neighbour, then my great-grandmother, and then two or three of her
>> daughters.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 19:59:18
Long Standing T.B. of the Spine, might also have conferred some degree of 'Immunity' to Pulmonary T.B. on Richard, even the 'Fresh Air' regime at Middleham might have helped. [Sanatorium care pre-Anti-Biotics offered this.] He might have had this form of T.B. for some years.
Bone has a very poor circulation, being for the most part mineral [Calcium.]
In modern practice infection in the bone is difficult to eradicate because of this and the poor blood supply to bone..
Pulmonary T.B. in Anne would probably have resulted in heavy nocturnal sweating and made sleeping together unpleasant to both partners.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:10
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 PM
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
>Anne?]
>
>> From the Skeletal Remains & supported by the Cambridge experts comments
>> last night on the television it seems likely that Richard was NOT abnormal
>> UNTIL he was about ten years old, then developed possible T.B. of the
>> Spine.
>
>Hum. I'd have thought if he had TB that young though he would have been
>generally sickly, and even if his bones show he was a skinny little chap and
>not very muscular he must have at the least been as hardy as blackthorn,
>considering the amount of riding and skirmishing he did, and that in an area
>of harsh weather and open moors. Scoliosis can also be caused by muscle
>imbalance due to injury - and they still haven't said whether the damage to
>his right shoulder-blade and joint is post mortem or not - or just by the
>spine growing faster than the muscles can keep up with.
>
>Scoliosis would have put pressure on his ribcage, though, and perhaps
>predisposed him to lung infections later on.
>
>
>
>
>
Bone has a very poor circulation, being for the most part mineral [Calcium.]
In modern practice infection in the bone is difficult to eradicate because of this and the poor blood supply to bone..
Pulmonary T.B. in Anne would probably have resulted in heavy nocturnal sweating and made sleeping together unpleasant to both partners.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:10
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 PM
>Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
>Anne?]
>
>> From the Skeletal Remains & supported by the Cambridge experts comments
>> last night on the television it seems likely that Richard was NOT abnormal
>> UNTIL he was about ten years old, then developed possible T.B. of the
>> Spine.
>
>Hum. I'd have thought if he had TB that young though he would have been
>generally sickly, and even if his bones show he was a skinny little chap and
>not very muscular he must have at the least been as hardy as blackthorn,
>considering the amount of riding and skirmishing he did, and that in an area
>of harsh weather and open moors. Scoliosis can also be caused by muscle
>imbalance due to injury - and they still haven't said whether the damage to
>his right shoulder-blade and joint is post mortem or not - or just by the
>spine growing faster than the muscles can keep up with.
>
>Scoliosis would have put pressure on his ribcage, though, and perhaps
>predisposed him to lung infections later on.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 20:50:34
pansydobersby wrote:
>
>[snip]
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child. [snip]
Carol responds:
Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
Just a few thoughts. I don't have any quibble with your diagnosis as a possibility (though, of course, we can't be sure). It would certainly explain the reaction of Richard's physicians, who must have consulted with Anne's own doctors.
Carol
>
>[snip]
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child. [snip]
Carol responds:
Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
Just a few thoughts. I don't have any quibble with your diagnosis as a possibility (though, of course, we can't be sure). It would certainly explain the reaction of Richard's physicians, who must have consulted with Anne's own doctors.
Carol
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 20:58:07
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
>
No, you're right, of course - and I'm not actually assuming Anne was weak (quite the opposite, if indeed she did have a latent TB for a long time - which is of course a very big 'if'), though I did go with the assumption that Isabel died from TB. Your theory sounds more plausible regarding her.
Also, about Edward of Middleham, I said that he's 'presumed to have been sickly' (or whatever my wording was! but that's what I meant).
Just wanted to clarify that, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
I only thought the TB of the reproductive organs was a neat theory, as it would explain deaths and infertilities in one fell swoop ;) *Too* neat, though, I'd say...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
>
No, you're right, of course - and I'm not actually assuming Anne was weak (quite the opposite, if indeed she did have a latent TB for a long time - which is of course a very big 'if'), though I did go with the assumption that Isabel died from TB. Your theory sounds more plausible regarding her.
Also, about Edward of Middleham, I said that he's 'presumed to have been sickly' (or whatever my wording was! but that's what I meant).
Just wanted to clarify that, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
I only thought the TB of the reproductive organs was a neat theory, as it would explain deaths and infertilities in one fell swoop ;) *Too* neat, though, I'd say...
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 21:29:53
Hmmm...iiiinteresting. It's neat because it gives a double explanation both for her early death and her infertility.
On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
And what about Edward of Middleham, the Prince of Wales? It wasn't half convenient for Tudor that he turned in his ticket when he did wasn't it.
Of course coincidences happen, that's why we have the word., but still...
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Well! This gives me a chance to share my pet theory about Anne's illness ;)
>
> I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
>
> (Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
>
> So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
>
> To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
>
> "Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
> source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
>
> I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
>
> "Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
> source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
>
> (For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
>
> Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
>
> A couple of other points to add:
>
> "Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
> source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
>
> "Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
> source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
>
> I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
>
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
>
> In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else… or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
>
> *) From the Wiley library link above:
>
> "Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
>
> No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed…
>
On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
And what about Edward of Middleham, the Prince of Wales? It wasn't half convenient for Tudor that he turned in his ticket when he did wasn't it.
Of course coincidences happen, that's why we have the word., but still...
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Well! This gives me a chance to share my pet theory about Anne's illness ;)
>
> I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
>
> (Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
>
> So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
>
> To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
>
> "Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
> source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
>
> I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
>
> "Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
> source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
>
> (For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
>
> Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
>
> A couple of other points to add:
>
> "Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
> source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
>
> "Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
> source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
>
> I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
>
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
>
> In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else… or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
>
> *) From the Wiley library link above:
>
> "Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
>
> No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed…
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 21:41:14
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
> On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
>
I'm not a doctor, but what I found interesting about the TB of the reproductive organs theory is that, apparently, infertility can be the only symptom for years. (Indeed, on the pages I read, it was often mentioned that the women often seek treatment for infertility and only later end up diagnosed for TB.) I'm not sure *how* exactly the disease would cause infertility without being an active form of the disease, but that's the impression I got.
Would be interesting to ask a doctor who actually knows about these things, though!
>
>
> On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
>
I'm not a doctor, but what I found interesting about the TB of the reproductive organs theory is that, apparently, infertility can be the only symptom for years. (Indeed, on the pages I read, it was often mentioned that the women often seek treatment for infertility and only later end up diagnosed for TB.) I'm not sure *how* exactly the disease would cause infertility without being an active form of the disease, but that's the impression I got.
Would be interesting to ask a doctor who actually knows about these things, though!
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 21:42:30
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
> Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might
> *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other
> interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
Or by accident, of course - it's always possible she loved drinking
fruit-juice and she'd bought this really pretty pewter goblet with a
sky-high lead content.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
> Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might
> *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other
> interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
Or by accident, of course - it's always possible she loved drinking
fruit-juice and she'd bought this really pretty pewter goblet with a
sky-high lead content.
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 21:48:10
But what was the point of the opposition poisoning her if she was generally thought to be barren? If she died Richard would just remarry anyway and have a child with someone else. Surely, even MB (and we are wildly speculating here!) would draw the line at continually poisoning Queens of England.
________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
Hmmm...iiiinteresting. It's neat because it gives a double explanation both for her early death and her infertility.
On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
And what about Edward of Middleham, the Prince of Wales? It wasn't half convenient for Tudor that he turned in his ticket when he did wasn't it.
Of course coincidences happen, that's why we have the word., but still...
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby wrote:
>
> Well! This gives me a chance to share my pet theory about Anne's illness ;)
>
> I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
>
> (Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
>
> So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
>
> To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
>
> "Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
> source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
>
> I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
>
> "Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
> source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
>
> (For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
>
> Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
>
> A couple of other points to add:
>
> "Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
> source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
>
> "Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
> source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
>
> I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
>
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
>
> In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else& or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
>
> *) From the Wiley library link above:
>
> "Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
>
> No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed&
>
________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
Hmmm...iiiinteresting. It's neat because it gives a double explanation both for her early death and her infertility.
On the downside though - I would be dubious about someone suffering TB of the fallopian tubes, ovaries or whatever surviving for any length of time, certainly not without her illness being noted. She'd give obvious signs of being infective. And there's nothing but deafening silence about her state of health prior to Christmas 1484, which - if it means anything - means she was likely not exhibiting obvious malaise.
Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
And what about Edward of Middleham, the Prince of Wales? It wasn't half convenient for Tudor that he turned in his ticket when he did wasn't it.
Of course coincidences happen, that's why we have the word., but still...
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby wrote:
>
> Well! This gives me a chance to share my pet theory about Anne's illness ;)
>
> I was wondering if it's ever been suggested or discussed here that Anne might have suffered from disseminated tuberculosis? And specifically, from tuberculosis of the reproductive organs?
>
> (Sorry if this theory has come up a thousand times - in which case, please skip the speculation below. I tried the search function but couldn't see any specific discussions of Anne's illness.)
>
> So, disseminated tuberculosis: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000624.htm
>
> To cut a long story short: tuberculosis is almost always contracted via the lungs, but in the disseminated form of the disease, it can spread to other organs through the bloodstream or lymph system - including the reproductive organs. I had no idea genital tuberculosis was even a thing, but apparently:
>
> "Most often the lung is affected, but, after lymphadenopathy, the most common form of nonpulmonary tuberculosis is genitourinary disease, accounting for 27% (range, 14 to 41%) of nonpulmonary cases in several surveys in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (3)."
> source: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/12/6/1307.full
>
> I was actually reading about disseminated tuberculosis in a completely different context - for a piece of fiction I've been writing - but when I came across this, I immediately thought of Anne:
>
> "Genital TB may be asymptomatic and the majority of women are diagnosed during investigations for infertility."
> source, and more interesting information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1576/toag.7.2.075.27000/asset/toag.7.2.075.27000.pdf?v=1&t=hd48pvq1&s=e5ffeecf23c7596528af5bc4c577bf7e4391fd96
>
> (For some reason I can only access the article above via Google, so if anyone else is having problems with the direct URL, here's the Google link: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1576%2Ftoag.7.2.075.27000%2Fpdf&ei=6lMbUYTXGsL-4QS5_YHICg&usg=AFQjCNHo70II3n7Iaw971U7jio4ZuuAt-g&sig2=wFDhEs3aOq0sfbaD0xs1qA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bGE )
>
> Given that genital tuberculosis can, like other kinds of tuberculosis, be asymptomatic for years (even 10-20 years, I read elsewhere - though I don't know how reliable that particular piece of information was), it would certainly fit the timeframe as an explanation for her infertility.
>
> A couple of other points to add:
>
> "Venereal acquisition of male genital tuberculosis is unlikely, although cases of male-to-female transmission of genital TB have been reported," says the link below, which would explain why Richard (presumably) didn't get the disease (though of course who knows, perhaps he eventually did):
> source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/450651-overview#aw2aab6b3
>
> "Infants born to women with untreated TB may be of lower birth weight than those born to women without TB and, in rare circumstances the infant may be born with TB."
> source: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/pregnancy.htm
>
> I know the explanation is a bit *too* convenient, but considering that everything fits so neatly in the timeframe, I can't resist speculating what might have happened:
>
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child.
>
> In this case, the ultimate cause of death might have been anything, really - either the 'traditional' lung tuberculosis, or kidney or liver failure, or acute pelvic inflammation, or something else& or Anne might have manifested many different symptoms, which would also explain: (a) why she's assumed to have died from consumption, but (b) why court physicians would have been concerned about Richard sharing her bed*, and (c ) why some might even have thought her illness seemed shady, and why that would have given rise to rumours about poisoning. Systemic diseases must have been quite puzzling at the time, as they are so very puzzling still.
>
> *) From the Wiley library link above:
>
> "Tuberculous lesions of the cervix present with postcoital bleeding, abnormal discharge and, on examination, have appearances similar to cancer of the cervix. Lesions on the vulva appear as shallow ulcers, which may be painful, especially with secondary bacterial infection. Vaginal lesions are often painless and are usually sited at the introits. Both can result in bloodstained purulent discharge and may be identified as sexually transmitted infection. The Bartholin's gland may be affected, presenting with pain and fistula formation despite adequate antibiotic cover."
>
> No wonder they'd have been alarmed by the prospect of, er, sexual relations. Though I'd wager Anne and Richard would already have been plenty alarmed themselves!
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor; not even a half-way competent amateur Dr House wannabe. But it would be nice to know if such a possibility has ever been considered, and whether the scenario could even be deemed plausible by others who are better informed&
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 21:56:19
Yeah, you're correct, I've been reading up. The bacillus invades the fallopian tubes and can end up sealing them shut with adhesions caused by chronic inflammation. It can also invade the uterus and ovaries. Often doesn't present with any obvious pathology elsewhere. Can be silent for years.
Wow, I'd say good call. It's totally possible.
I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'm not a doctor, but what I found interesting about the TB of the reproductive organs theory is that, apparently, infertility can be the only symptom for years. (Indeed, on the pages I read, it was often mentioned that the women often seek treatment for infertility and only later end up diagnosed for TB.) I'm not sure *how* exactly the disease would cause infertility without being an active form of the disease, but that's the impression I got.
>
> Would be interesting to ask a doctor who actually knows about these things, though!
>
Wow, I'd say good call. It's totally possible.
I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'm not a doctor, but what I found interesting about the TB of the reproductive organs theory is that, apparently, infertility can be the only symptom for years. (Indeed, on the pages I read, it was often mentioned that the women often seek treatment for infertility and only later end up diagnosed for TB.) I'm not sure *how* exactly the disease would cause infertility without being an active form of the disease, but that's the impression I got.
>
> Would be interesting to ask a doctor who actually knows about these things, though!
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:04:02
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
> I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying
> around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly
> or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
> I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying
> around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly
> or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:14:15
I think there is a good chance she was poisoned...by her doctors.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
>
>
> > Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might
> > *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other
> > interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
>
> Or by accident, of course - it's always possible she loved drinking
> fruit-juice and she'd bought this really pretty pewter goblet with a
> sky-high lead content.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
>
>
> > Just to throw it out there - has it ever been considered she might
> > *actually* have been poisoned? Not necessarily by Richard, but by other
> > interested parties? MB and her merry band for example?
>
> Or by accident, of course - it's always possible she loved drinking
> fruit-juice and she'd bought this really pretty pewter goblet with a
> sky-high lead content.
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:16:08
Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you think Buck made some of this up? I can't think of any reason why he would make up the Elizabeth of York letter but some of this stuff seems preposterous. Apart from anything else, I seriously doubt if the "certain countess" would have put any such thing in a letter unless it was written in super-duper secret code and where would Buck get the key from?
Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own ....)
Liz
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own ....)
Liz
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:21:03
Poor Buck...he died insane...Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Really?   You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you think Buck made some of this up? I can't think of any reason why he would make up the Elizabeth of York letter but some of this stuff seems preposterous. Apart from anything else, I seriously doubt if the "certain countess" would have put any such thing in a letter unless it was written in super-duper secret code and where would Buck get the key from?
> Â
> Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own ....)
> Â
> Liz
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
>
> Â Â
>
> I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
> argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
> letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
> missing boys?
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Really?   You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you think Buck made some of this up? I can't think of any reason why he would make up the Elizabeth of York letter but some of this stuff seems preposterous. Apart from anything else, I seriously doubt if the "certain countess" would have put any such thing in a letter unless it was written in super-duper secret code and where would Buck get the key from?
> Â
> Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own ....)
> Â
> Liz
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
>
> Â Â
>
> I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
> argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
> letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
> missing boys?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:28:38
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up? I can't think of any reason why he would
> make up the Elizabeth of York letter but some of this stuff seems
> preposterous. Apart from anything else, I seriously doubt if the "certain
> countess" would have put any such thing in a letter unless it was written
> in super-duper secret code and where would Buck get the key from?
I'll try and find the exact reference tomorrow - I've got the Kincaid
upstairs, but I can't remember whether it has an index. I suspect the
letter will turn out to be vaguer than that and open to different
interpretations since, as you say, they probably wouldn't commit something
to paper that they couldn't explain away. Like Richard's own maddeningly
opaque references to people "who have taken upon themselves the fact of an
enterprise" and "matters which ye know of".
> Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised
> version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own
> ....)
Buck himself. I can't remember whether the nephew added any bits but he
certainly re-worked quite a lot of it to make it sound as if he'd written it
himself, thus turning some of Buck's interviews with near-contemporaries of
Richard into mere hearsay, because he hismelf was too young to have met the
people concerned. And a lot of Buck;s notes were cut out. But whther the
nephew actually *added* anything I'm not sure. [This is your answer, AJ -
you really need the Kincaid.]
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up? I can't think of any reason why he would
> make up the Elizabeth of York letter but some of this stuff seems
> preposterous. Apart from anything else, I seriously doubt if the "certain
> countess" would have put any such thing in a letter unless it was written
> in super-duper secret code and where would Buck get the key from?
I'll try and find the exact reference tomorrow - I've got the Kincaid
upstairs, but I can't remember whether it has an index. I suspect the
letter will turn out to be vaguer than that and open to different
interpretations since, as you say, they probably wouldn't commit something
to paper that they couldn't explain away. Like Richard's own maddeningly
opaque references to people "who have taken upon themselves the fact of an
enterprise" and "matters which ye know of".
> Were these things in the original work by Buck or in the bastardised
> version by his nephew? (I'm wondering if the nephew added bits of his own
> ....)
Buck himself. I can't remember whether the nephew added any bits but he
certainly re-worked quite a lot of it to make it sound as if he'd written it
himself, thus turning some of Buck's interviews with near-contemporaries of
Richard into mere hearsay, because he hismelf was too young to have met the
people concerned. And a lot of Buck;s notes were cut out. But whther the
nephew actually *added* anything I'm not sure. [This is your answer, AJ -
you really need the Kincaid.]
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
missing boys?
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:31:53
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up?
Oh and no, I don't think Buck made any of it up - but I think he probably
didn't take very good notes and then had to try and reconstruct a lot of it
from memory months or years later.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up?
Oh and no, I don't think Buck made any of it up - but I think he probably
didn't take very good notes and then had to try and reconstruct a lot of it
from memory months or years later.
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:36:32
Well that would make sense and it would fit with Annette's ideas about the letter to Norfolk.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:43
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up?
Oh and no, I don't think Buck made any of it up - but I think he probably
didn't take very good notes and then had to try and reconstruct a lot of it
from memory months or years later.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:43
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Anne's last illness
> Really? You know, this may well open a can of worms too but do you
> think Buck made some of this up?
Oh and no, I don't think Buck made any of it up - but I think he probably
didn't take very good notes and then had to try and reconstruct a lot of it
from memory months or years later.
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:40:04
Pansy (Carol),
I doubt this helps at all but I have had pulminary TB twice, once as a child of 8, and another time some 30 odd years' later. It was only detected by the thoroughness of the
Australian medical system. Both times the symptoms were a significant cough and weight loss (no night sweats), which passed as whooping cough. I did not pass this on to either of my children though I was clearly carrying it at the time (and still am although it is latent). I did however read somewhere, and now someone is going to ask me for the sources, that the Neville women had difficulties in childbirth and conception which probably came from Isabel Dispenser, Anne Beauchamp's mother. Were Karen Clark on the forum still I'm sure she'd tell us more.
In some ways, I suppose it's more than likely a doctor could have poisoned anyone then, purposely or inadvertently. They were still doing that in the nineteenth century' And I have often wondered why no-one came up with the theory that Richard had contracted TB, that is if that is what Anne had, but who knows? I 've never really understood why people swallowed the TB story. It's repeated everywhere but I've never seen a proper source. H.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 20:50
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
pansydobersby wrote:
>
>[snip]
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child. [snip]
Carol responds:
Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven
years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
Just a few thoughts. I don't have any quibble with your diagnosis as a possibility (though, of course, we can't be sure). It would certainly explain the reaction of Richard's physicians, who must have consulted with Anne's own doctors.
Carol
I doubt this helps at all but I have had pulminary TB twice, once as a child of 8, and another time some 30 odd years' later. It was only detected by the thoroughness of the
Australian medical system. Both times the symptoms were a significant cough and weight loss (no night sweats), which passed as whooping cough. I did not pass this on to either of my children though I was clearly carrying it at the time (and still am although it is latent). I did however read somewhere, and now someone is going to ask me for the sources, that the Neville women had difficulties in childbirth and conception which probably came from Isabel Dispenser, Anne Beauchamp's mother. Were Karen Clark on the forum still I'm sure she'd tell us more.
In some ways, I suppose it's more than likely a doctor could have poisoned anyone then, purposely or inadvertently. They were still doing that in the nineteenth century' And I have often wondered why no-one came up with the theory that Richard had contracted TB, that is if that is what Anne had, but who knows? I 've never really understood why people swallowed the TB story. It's repeated everywhere but I've never seen a proper source. H.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 20:50
Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
pansydobersby wrote:
>
>[snip]
> Anne contracts tuberculosis => she's physically stronger than her sister so the disease remains latent or undetected, but as TB is in her bloodstream she passes it on to her son at birth => TB affects her reproductive organs and renders her infertile => after Edward of Middleham's death, the grief and stress trigger the acute phase of the disease.
>
> It would certainly explain the years of infertility, and why Edward of Middleham was assumed to be a sickly child. [snip]
Carol responds:
Very interesting theory, which I don't want to comment on per se. But you seem to be assuming that Isabel also had tuberculosis and that both sisters were weak. We really have too little information to make that assumption. Isabel's health could have been strained by four possibly difficult pregnancies. We know that the conditions of the birth of her stillborn son on shipboard were horrible. Her last son died within two weeks of his mother's death. But unlike Anne, who seems to have been infertile after the birth of her one child, Isabel gave birth four times. That suggests to me (and, like you, I'm not a doctor) that her death was related to childbirth, perhaps puerperal fever (septicemia). Also, the only "evidence" that Edward of Middleham was sickly, other than his sudden and obviously unexpected death given his parents' reaction, is his absence from his father's coronation, but that could be explained by his age (if Rous is right, he was only seven
years old). His parents apparently wanted to keep him at home in Middleham, but that could easily be explained by their wanting to keep him in a wholesome, homey atmosphere far from the corruption of court life.
Just a few thoughts. I don't have any quibble with your diagnosis as a possibility (though, of course, we can't be sure). It would certainly explain the reaction of Richard's physicians, who must have consulted with Anne's own doctors.
Carol
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-02-28 22:49:22
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
>
>
> > I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying
> > around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly
> > or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
>
> I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
> argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
> letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
> missing boys?
>
Oh my. I never heard that before. What an awful shame (or is it suspicious) that Buck didn't think to make copies of these blasted letters?
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne's last illness
>
>
> > I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying
> > around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly
> > or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
>
> I realise this is opening a can of worms and starting up another long
> argument - but wasn't one of the documents Buck claimed to have seen a
> letter from "a certain countess" to Morton, conspiring to poison the two
> missing boys?
>
Oh my. I never heard that before. What an awful shame (or is it suspicious) that Buck didn't think to make copies of these blasted letters?
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:08:32
Claire M Jordan wrote:
"Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility."
Doug here:
When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
the doctor.
The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
symptoms were so pronounced.
Doug
"Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility."
Doug here:
When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
the doctor.
The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
symptoms were so pronounced.
Doug
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:20:57
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations
Yes, but if you hadn't been treated, then the period during which you were
ill enough to be obviously dying but not dead yet would probably have been
longer than the roughly 6-12 weeks we see for Ann (from the little knowledge
we have). I suppose a cancer of the liver or pancreas is possible.
But then, it was apparently believed to be contagious, which suggests
something oozy, and there's the infertility, and Richard's startlingly pink
and white complexion with prominent blue veins (this doesn't come over
terribly well in reproductions but trust me, I visited that portrait several
times just after it was cleaned and I remember thinking he was the most
consumptive-looking specimen I'd ever seen). I'm not saying Ann definitely
had TB - just that TB is probably the most likely option.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations
Yes, but if you hadn't been treated, then the period during which you were
ill enough to be obviously dying but not dead yet would probably have been
longer than the roughly 6-12 weeks we see for Ann (from the little knowledge
we have). I suppose a cancer of the liver or pancreas is possible.
But then, it was apparently believed to be contagious, which suggests
something oozy, and there's the infertility, and Richard's startlingly pink
and white complexion with prominent blue veins (this doesn't come over
terribly well in reproductions but trust me, I visited that portrait several
times just after it was cleaned and I remember thinking he was the most
consumptive-looking specimen I'd ever seen). I'm not saying Ann definitely
had TB - just that TB is probably the most likely option.
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:20:57
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
We know that Anne was enjoying herself (behaving badly according to old CC) at Christmas....although its possible she felt ill but still battled on...and then a sudden collapse immediately after. It reads as if she took to her bed and never got up again...Sounds similar to what you describe Doug...Eileen
> Doug here:
>
> When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
> actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
> cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
> collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
> the doctor.
> The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
> continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
> loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
> months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
> lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
> disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
> later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
> preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
> symptoms were so pronounced.
> Doug
>
>
We know that Anne was enjoying herself (behaving badly according to old CC) at Christmas....although its possible she felt ill but still battled on...and then a sudden collapse immediately after. It reads as if she took to her bed and never got up again...Sounds similar to what you describe Doug...Eileen
> Doug here:
>
> When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
> actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
> cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
> collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
> the doctor.
> The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
> continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
> loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
> months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
> lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
> disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
> later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
> preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
> symptoms were so pronounced.
> Doug
>
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:27:32
Its possible that the portrait you saw had been tampered with. We do know that his portraits were altered to make him look crafty/nasty such as narrowed eyes, thin lips not to mention the raised shoulder. Would an artist at the time painted the King warts and all as it were (I think it was Oliver Cromwell insisted on this but he had nothing to lose)....they tended to flatter. I do agree with you that TB is 'probably the most likely option' I suppose because there was so much of it about...but of course we could be totally barking up the wrong tree.
Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> But then, it was apparently believed to be contagious, which suggests
> something oozy, and there's the infertility, and Richard's startlingly pink
> and white complexion with prominent blue veins (this doesn't come over
> terribly well in reproductions but trust me, I visited that portrait several
> times just after it was cleaned and I remember thinking he was the most
> consumptive-looking specimen I'd ever seen).
I'm not saying Ann definitely
> had TB - just that TB is probably the most likely option.
>
Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> But then, it was apparently believed to be contagious, which suggests
> something oozy, and there's the infertility, and Richard's startlingly pink
> and white complexion with prominent blue veins (this doesn't come over
> terribly well in reproductions but trust me, I visited that portrait several
> times just after it was cleaned and I remember thinking he was the most
> consumptive-looking specimen I'd ever seen).
I'm not saying Ann definitely
> had TB - just that TB is probably the most likely option.
>
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:40:28
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> Its possible that the portrait you saw had been tampered with.
This is the one in the National Portrait Gallery. Both it and the Society
of Antiquaries one, which along with the Royal Collection one (which hasn't
been cleaned afaik and is therefore yellowish) are the three earliest
survivals, show him with an exceptionally white skin and red lips. The NPG
one, which has more detail in the skin tone, also has very red cheeks and a
pattern of distinct blue veins. None of this makes Richard look
unattractive or villainous - if anything it makes him look more angelic - so
it's unlikely to be a later addition.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing
Anne?]
> Its possible that the portrait you saw had been tampered with.
This is the one in the National Portrait Gallery. Both it and the Society
of Antiquaries one, which along with the Royal Collection one (which hasn't
been cleaned afaik and is therefore yellowish) are the three earliest
survivals, show him with an exceptionally white skin and red lips. The NPG
one, which has more detail in the skin tone, also has very red cheeks and a
pattern of distinct blue veins. None of this makes Richard look
unattractive or villainous - if anything it makes him look more angelic - so
it's unlikely to be a later addition.
Re: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?]
2013-02-28 23:58:28
Oh Doug, so sorry about your Hodgkins..... That makes sense, as well as the TB. The course of diseases is so interesting. We have to put Anne's death, and their son's, in perspective with the medical knowledge at the time. I have done no research on the state of 15th Century medicine. But, we really cannot know, IMHO. Speculation is interesting, really interesting. I wish there was a way to determine what someone who died, not in battle or by injury, actually died of. And that includes our grandparents, for those of us over 50.
On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:08 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
Claire M Jordan wrote:
"Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility."
Doug here:
When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
the doctor.
The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
symptoms were so pronounced.
Doug
On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:08 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
Claire M Jordan wrote:
"Croyland indicates that she was in serious decline at least for some weeks
and the statement that Richard was barred from her bed by *his* physicians,
if it's accurate, suggests she was seen as a threat to him. And of course
TB was common.
There are many other possibilitiues, of course, but if it was e.g. cancer
her decline would probably have been slower, and if something like
septicaemia or smallpox, a lot faster. Malaria was rife in some area but
not I think in the areas she lived.
I've always suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy, but again if that was
all she had she'd probably have died faster, and the doctors probably
wouldn't have thought it was contagious, so TB seems the most likely
possibility."
Doug here:
When I was diagnosed with Hodgkins I never was able to find out how long I'd
actually had it before the diagnosis was made. One of my symptoms was a dry
cough that got so bad I couldn't sleep; even then it wasn't until I almost
collapsed at work from exhaustion/lack of sleep/weight loss that I went to
the doctor.
The point being, that I was able, for a period of at least two months, to
continue my job of packing books, lifting boxes weighing 40+ pounds and
loading those boxes onto trucks (by hand!). If I could do *that* for two
months, I don't see why Anne couldn't have developed a cancer along the
lines of Hodgkins' well before those Christmas celebrations CC so
disapproved of, the disease itself just didn't show any symptoms until
later. Just because Anne was noted as being ill in February, doesn't
preclude the possibility that she was also ill earlier, just that the
symptoms were so pronounced.
Doug
Re: Anne's last illness
2013-03-01 00:04:33
You might want to go over to H8 and look at his incredibly unlucky legitimate sons, all but one who died in infancy. And his acknowledged illegitimate son, who died just before Henry was to make Fitzroy his heir.
So many died around H8, the argument for poison might be made there as well. Or perhaps the midwives were just stupid enough to keep rubbing a lot of honey on the gums of the newborns. Or...the speculations are endless.
You might look at Edward VI as well, because his death wasn't all that "normal" either, with its series of improvements and relapses...though most think it was from TB.
~Weds
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
So many died around H8, the argument for poison might be made there as well. Or perhaps the midwives were just stupid enough to keep rubbing a lot of honey on the gums of the newborns. Or...the speculations are endless.
You might look at Edward VI as well, because his death wasn't all that "normal" either, with its series of improvements and relapses...though most think it was from TB.
~Weds
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> I'm still feeling a nagging sort of suspicion though. So many people dying around Richard, and most of the deaths end up benefitting Tudor directly or indirectly. Henry was a lucky chappie to say the least.
Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?])
2013-03-01 19:03:06
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> This is the one in the National Portrait Gallery. Both it and the Society of Antiquaries one, which along with the Royal Collection one (which hasn't been cleaned afaik and is therefore yellowish) are the three earliest survivals, show him with an exceptionally white skin and red lips. The NPG one, which has more detail in the skin tone, also has very red cheeks and a pattern of distinct blue veins. None of this makes Richard look unattractive or villainous - if anything it makes him look more angelic - so it's unlikely to be a later addition.
Carol responds:
The Royal Collection portrait *was* tampered with to make it look villainous (as I believe Pamela Tudor-Craig pointed out in the documentary). See the article on portraits at the Richard III Society's new website:
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
Carol
> This is the one in the National Portrait Gallery. Both it and the Society of Antiquaries one, which along with the Royal Collection one (which hasn't been cleaned afaik and is therefore yellowish) are the three earliest survivals, show him with an exceptionally white skin and red lips. The NPG one, which has more detail in the skin tone, also has very red cheeks and a pattern of distinct blue veins. None of this makes Richard look unattractive or villainous - if anything it makes him look more angelic - so it's unlikely to be a later addition.
Carol responds:
The Royal Collection portrait *was* tampered with to make it look villainous (as I believe Pamela Tudor-Craig pointed out in the documentary). See the article on portraits at the Richard III Society's new website:
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?
2013-03-01 19:16:15
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies
[was Richard Replacing Anne?])
> The Royal Collection portrait *was* tampered with to make it look
> villainous
Yes, but I have excluded the RC portrait from consideration, even though
it's one of the three earliest portraits, because it hasn't been cleaned and
therefore his complexion in it is simply varnish-coloured. But if it was
cleaned, and turned out to have the same pink-and-white complexion, it's
unlikely that that complexion would have been added to make him look
villainous when, in fact, it makes him look like the toddler in the Pears
Soap advert (as regards his skin tone - nothing else!)
I was thinking yesterday what a pity it is that we don't still have the
effigy from his original (Tudor) tomb, since the standard of tomb figures at
the time seems to have been high. What I wonder is whether the story about
his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was
thrown into the river, in which case it should still be somewhere near where
it was dropped in. It must have gone somewhere, and it would be less likely
to be broken up and re-used than the actual tombstone, because the pieces
would be awkward shapes.
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies
[was Richard Replacing Anne?])
> The Royal Collection portrait *was* tampered with to make it look
> villainous
Yes, but I have excluded the RC portrait from consideration, even though
it's one of the three earliest portraits, because it hasn't been cleaned and
therefore his complexion in it is simply varnish-coloured. But if it was
cleaned, and turned out to have the same pink-and-white complexion, it's
unlikely that that complexion would have been added to make him look
villainous when, in fact, it makes him look like the toddler in the Pears
Soap advert (as regards his skin tone - nothing else!)
I was thinking yesterday what a pity it is that we don't still have the
effigy from his original (Tudor) tomb, since the standard of tomb figures at
the time seems to have been high. What I wonder is whether the story about
his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was
thrown into the river, in which case it should still be somewhere near where
it was dropped in. It must have gone somewhere, and it would be less likely
to be broken up and re-used than the actual tombstone, because the pieces
would be awkward shapes.
Re: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?
2013-03-02 01:37:20
-"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip] What I wonder is whether the story about
> his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was thrown into the river, [snip]
Carol responds:
Actually, it arose because an antiquary (Stowe, I think) was looking for his grave in Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars. When he couldn't find it, he speculated that the body might have been thrown into the River Soar when the abbey was destroyed. Speculation turned to legend, which crystallized into "fact." The effigy may have been gone by the time Herrick had his garden, and J A[H postulates that the original epitaph may have been on wood or parchment, which would explain why it's no longer extant. Or further excavation at the Greyfriars site may turn something up.
Carol
> [snip] What I wonder is whether the story about
> his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was thrown into the river, [snip]
Carol responds:
Actually, it arose because an antiquary (Stowe, I think) was looking for his grave in Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars. When he couldn't find it, he speculated that the body might have been thrown into the River Soar when the abbey was destroyed. Speculation turned to legend, which crystallized into "fact." The effigy may have been gone by the time Herrick had his garden, and J A[H postulates that the original epitaph may have been on wood or parchment, which would explain why it's no longer extant. Or further excavation at the Greyfriars site may turn something up.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?
2013-03-02 03:36:55
[Snicker.] Way to go, Stowe. Can't find a big-ass monastery with a roadmap and tracking dogs, so you just claim they dismantled it and hauled it to the dump.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> -"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > [snip] What I wonder is whether the story about
> > his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was thrown into the river, [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, it arose because an antiquary (Stowe, I think) was looking for his grave in Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars. When he couldn't find it, he speculated that the body might have been thrown into the River Soar when the abbey was destroyed. Speculation turned to legend, which crystallized into "fact." The effigy may have been gone by the time Herrick had his garden, and J A[H postulates that the original epitaph may have been on wood or parchment, which would explain why it's no longer extant. Or further excavation at the Greyfriars site may turn something up.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> -"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > [snip] What I wonder is whether the story about
> > his body being thrown into the Soar came about because his *effigy* was thrown into the river, [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, it arose because an antiquary (Stowe, I think) was looking for his grave in Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars. When he couldn't find it, he speculated that the body might have been thrown into the River Soar when the abbey was destroyed. Speculation turned to legend, which crystallized into "fact." The effigy may have been gone by the time Herrick had his garden, and J A[H postulates that the original epitaph may have been on wood or parchment, which would explain why it's no longer extant. Or further excavation at the Greyfriars site may turn something up.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?
2013-03-02 16:25:39
"mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> [Snicker.] Way to go, Stowe. Can't find a big-ass monastery with a roadmap and tracking dogs, so you just claim they dismantled it and hauled it to the dump.
Carol responds:
Sorry; I should have checked the sources before posting instead of being in a hurry and writing from memory. It was John Speede, a map maker and historian, who came up with the River Soar theory when he failed to find Richard's grave at the site of Blackfriars in 1610. John Stowe was an antiquarian who told Sir George Buck that he had spoken to old men who had seen Richard and reported that he was "of bodily shape comely enough, onely of low stature." IIRC, it was Stowe who urged Buck to examine the historical record regarding Richard III. Unfortunately, his own account relies heavily on More, Vergil, and the later Tudor chroniclers (whom, according to Anne Sutton, he doesn't clearly distinguish from one another).
So, oops, sorry. My original post wasn't up to Speede. He's the one who couldn't find the monastery because he didn't know black from grey. Blame it on Henry VIII for confusing people as to which order of friars was which, not to mention the dissolution of the abbeys.
Carol
>
> [Snicker.] Way to go, Stowe. Can't find a big-ass monastery with a roadmap and tracking dogs, so you just claim they dismantled it and hauled it to the dump.
Carol responds:
Sorry; I should have checked the sources before posting instead of being in a hurry and writing from memory. It was John Speede, a map maker and historian, who came up with the River Soar theory when he failed to find Richard's grave at the site of Blackfriars in 1610. John Stowe was an antiquarian who told Sir George Buck that he had spoken to old men who had seen Richard and reported that he was "of bodily shape comely enough, onely of low stature." IIRC, it was Stowe who urged Buck to examine the historical record regarding Richard III. Unfortunately, his own account relies heavily on More, Vergil, and the later Tudor chroniclers (whom, according to Anne Sutton, he doesn't clearly distinguish from one another).
So, oops, sorry. My original post wasn't up to Speede. He's the one who couldn't find the monastery because he didn't know black from grey. Blame it on Henry VIII for confusing people as to which order of friars was which, not to mention the dissolution of the abbeys.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits (Was: Tragedies [was Richard Replacing Anne?
2013-03-02 20:11:20
[Dolefully.] And here I was making fun of the guy for not being able to tell the difference between the Greyfriars and the Blackfriars. How lame am I? Yes, of course, it was Speede who was not too swift. I will have to stow my joke until another occasion.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > [Snicker.] Way to go, Stowe. Can't find a big-ass monastery with a roadmap and tracking dogs, so you just claim they dismantled it and hauled it to the dump.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry; I should have checked the sources before posting instead of being in a hurry and writing from memory. It was John Speede, a map maker and historian, who came up with the River Soar theory when he failed to find Richard's grave at the site of Blackfriars in 1610. John Stowe was an antiquarian who told Sir George Buck that he had spoken to old men who had seen Richard and reported that he was "of bodily shape comely enough, onely of low stature." IIRC, it was Stowe who urged Buck to examine the historical record regarding Richard III. Unfortunately, his own account relies heavily on More, Vergil, and the later Tudor chroniclers (whom, according to Anne Sutton, he doesn't clearly distinguish from one another).
>
> So, oops, sorry. My original post wasn't up to Speede. He's the one who couldn't find the monastery because he didn't know black from grey. Blame it on Henry VIII for confusing people as to which order of friars was which, not to mention the dissolution of the abbeys.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > [Snicker.] Way to go, Stowe. Can't find a big-ass monastery with a roadmap and tracking dogs, so you just claim they dismantled it and hauled it to the dump.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry; I should have checked the sources before posting instead of being in a hurry and writing from memory. It was John Speede, a map maker and historian, who came up with the River Soar theory when he failed to find Richard's grave at the site of Blackfriars in 1610. John Stowe was an antiquarian who told Sir George Buck that he had spoken to old men who had seen Richard and reported that he was "of bodily shape comely enough, onely of low stature." IIRC, it was Stowe who urged Buck to examine the historical record regarding Richard III. Unfortunately, his own account relies heavily on More, Vergil, and the later Tudor chroniclers (whom, according to Anne Sutton, he doesn't clearly distinguish from one another).
>
> So, oops, sorry. My original post wasn't up to Speede. He's the one who couldn't find the monastery because he didn't know black from grey. Blame it on Henry VIII for confusing people as to which order of friars was which, not to mention the dissolution of the abbeys.
>
> Carol
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.