Crouchback/Crookback

Re Edmund Crouchback. After I couldn't find anything conclusive in Mortimer's Henry IV, other than the term Crouchback wasn't used until the late 14th century, I decided to look at Marc Morris's biography of Edward I, after all, Edmund was his brother.
Morris's book is quite old now (1988)but detailed and well-indexed.
From it I was able to ascertain:

1. There was no reference to any delicacy or deformity affecting Edmund
2. He want on two crusades, one with his brother, and the other instead of him
3. His relationship with Edward was very like that of Edward and Richard, the loyal 'deputy' of whom Edward was very fond and upset when he died
4. The term crouchback, illness or deformity is not mentioned in the book at all but crusades play a big part.

I think we can lean towards the interpretation that in Edmund's case crouchback was indeed used to indicate his crusading career.

Hope this helps. H

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Crouchback/Crookback


> I think we can lean towards the interpretation that in Edmund's case
> crouchback was indeed used to indicate his crusading career.

In that case it was probably originally Cruxback.

Indeed.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 11:38
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Crouchback/Crookback

> I think we can lean towards the interpretation that in Edmund's case
> crouchback was indeed used to indicate his crusading career.

In that case it was probably originally Cruxback.

Hilary wrote:

> > I think we can lean towards the interpretation that in Edmund's case crouchback was indeed used to indicate his crusading career.

Claire responded:

> In that case it was probably originally Cruxback.
>
Carol responds:

I did the etymologies earlier if you want to search the forum for the post (or the whole thread). I still want to know when that story about Henry IV claiming that Edmund was set aside because of his *disability* arose. That would tell us when "crouchback" became synonymous with "crookback."

Carol

It came from either Usk or Hardyng, late 14th/early15th century who said that Edmund had been disinherited by H2 because he was an 'imbecile'. I'll look it up. Somehow I don't think it will be Hardyng who knew Richard of York and Edward IV. If R was indeed a 'crookback' it would be very insensitive of him. But as we know, Edmund was disinherited by his brother, not H2.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 0:47
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

Hilary wrote:

> > I think we can lean towards the interpretation that in Edmund's case crouchback was indeed used to indicate his crusading career.

Claire responded:

> In that case it was probably originally Cruxback.
>
Carol responds:

I did the etymologies earlier if you want to search the forum for the post (or the whole thread). I still want to know when that story about Henry IV claiming that Edmund was set aside because of his *disability* arose. That would tell us when "crouchback" became synonymous with "crookback."

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It came from either Usk or Hardyng, late 14th/early15th century who said that Edmund had been disinherited by H2 because he was an 'imbecile'. I'll look it up. Somehow I don't think it will be Hardyng who knew Richard of York and Edward IV. If R was indeed a 'crookback' it would be very insensitive of him. But as we know, Edmund was disinherited by his brother, not H2.

Carol responds:

I wasn't aware that Edmund was disinherited by anybody. He was unquestionably the younger son. Now I'm even more confused.

Carol

Disinherited is the wrong word - I was rushing out to work, many apologies. Edward I in 1290 put his daughters by Eleanor in line to the throne ahead of any sons he might have from his second marriage and Edmund and his children; which meant that Edmund's children were way back in the queue. I don't think he did it through malice, he was fond of Edmund, and no doubt any younger sons he might have had by the second marriage. AAnd he clearly didn't do it because Edmund had any 'defects' Again may apologies! 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 14:55
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It came from either Usk or Hardyng, late 14th/early15th century who said that Edmund had been disinherited by H2 because he was an 'imbecile'. I'll look it up. Somehow I don't think it will be Hardyng who knew Richard of York and Edward IV. If R was indeed a 'crookback' it would be very insensitive of him. But as we know, Edmund was disinherited by his brother, not H2.

Carol responds:

I wasn't aware that Edmund was disinherited by anybody. He was unquestionably the younger son. Now I'm even more confused.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Disinherited is the wrong word - I was rushing out to work, many apologies. Edward I in 1290 put his daughters by Eleanor in line to the throne ahead of any sons he might have from his second marriage and Edmund and his children; which meant that Edmund's children were way back in the queue. I don't think he did it through malice, he was fond of Edmund, and no doubt any younger sons he might have had by the second marriage. And he clearly didn't do it because Edmund had any 'defects' Again may apologies! 

Carol responds:

Are you sure? Edward I was Edmund's brother. Edward I did have a lot of sons, but the only son by his first wife who survived was the future Edward II. I can see him putting his daughters by his first wife ahead of his sons by his second wife, especially when E II's last older brother, Alphonso, died, but Edmund as Edward I's brother would have been pushed back in the queue by Edward I's children, anyway, just as George Clarence was pushed back by Edward IV's children.

The father of both Edward I and Edmund was Henry III. He had three daughters, but I don't think that any of them were ahead of Edmund.

Carol

I think you may have missed one of my earlier posts so I'll try to clarify.
 
Henry III did not change the primogeniture of the succession - males always took precedence and his daughters didn't take precedence over Edmund his younger son
Edward and Edmund were as you say brothers and got on well
In 1290 Edward changed the succession and said that his sons (primarily Edward II) and daughters up to 1290 would take precedence over any future sons of his own, and Edmund (Crouchback - I use this for clarification not because it was a term used then) and his children. So he didn't disinherit Edmund, just pushed him behind his daughters born before 1290. The descendent of one of these daughters was Edmund Mortimer.
In 1376 Edward III changed the succession back to primogeniture which meant his heirs were Richard II and after him John of Gaunt and Henry Bolingbroke  
In 1399 Richard II changed the succession back to Edward I's arrangment making Edmund Mortimer heir again and discarding Bolingbroke
Bolingbroke in claiming the throne said that Edward I and subsequent kings had no right to change the successsion so claimed the throne through the primogeniture which had always been the custom up to Henry III.
 
I hope this helps a bit, It is quite complex?  H
 
 
   
________________________________

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Disinherited is the wrong word - I was rushing out to work, many apologies. Edward I in 1290 put his daughters by Eleanor in line to the throne ahead of any sons he might have from his second marriage and Edmund and his children; which meant that Edmund's children were way back in the queue. I don't think he did it through malice, he was fond of Edmund, and no doubt any younger sons he might have had by the second marriage. And he clearly didn't do it because Edmund had any 'defects' Again may apologies! 

Carol responds:

Are you sure? Edward I was Edmund's brother. Edward I did have a lot of sons, but the only son by his first wife who survived was the future Edward II. I can see him putting his daughters by his first wife ahead of his sons by his second wife, especially when E II's last older brother, Alphonso, died, but Edmund as Edward I's brother would have been pushed back in the queue by Edward I's children, anyway, just as George Clarence was pushed back by Edward IV's children.

The father of both Edward I and Edmund was Henry III. He had three daughters, but I don't think that any of them were ahead of Edmund.

Carol

The Mortimers (all named Edmund or Roger, so it seems) were also descended from Edward III's second relevant son Lionel, whilst John of Gaunt was junior to him. Simple primogeniture would put the Mortimers ahead of Bolingbroke.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback



I think you may have missed one of my earlier posts so I'll try to clarify.

Henry III did not change the primogeniture of the succession - males always took precedence and his daughters didn't take precedence over Edmund his younger son
Edward and Edmund were as you say brothers and got on well
In 1290 Edward changed the succession and said that his sons (primarily Edward II) and daughters up to 1290 would take precedence over any future sons of his own, and Edmund (Crouchback - I use this for clarification not because it was a term used then) and his children. So he didn't disinherit Edmund, just pushed him behind his daughters born before 1290. The descendent of one of these daughters was Edmund Mortimer.
In 1376 Edward III changed the succession back to primogeniture which meant his heirs were Richard II and after him John of Gaunt and Henry Bolingbroke
In 1399 Richard II changed the succession back to Edward I's arrangment making Edmund Mortimer heir again and discarding Bolingbroke
Bolingbroke in claiming the throne said that Edward I and subsequent kings had no right to change the successsion so claimed the throne through the primogeniture which had always been the custom up to Henry III.

I hope this helps a bit, It is quite complex? H



________________________________

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback




--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Disinherited is the wrong word - I was rushing out to work, many apologies. Edward I in 1290 put his daughters by Eleanor in line to the throne ahead of any sons he might have from his second marriage and Edmund and his children; which meant that Edmund's children were way back in the queue. I don't think he did it through malice, he was fond of Edmund, and no doubt any younger sons he might have had by the second marriage. And he clearly didn't do it because Edmund had any 'defects' Again may apologies!

Carol responds:

Are you sure? Edward I was Edmund's brother. Edward I did have a lot of sons, but the only son by his first wife who survived was the future Edward II. I can see him putting his daughters by his first wife ahead of his sons by his second wife, especially when E II's last older brother, Alphonso, died, but Edmund as Edward I's brother would have been pushed back in the queue by Edward I's children, anyway, just as George Clarence was pushed back by Edward IV's children.

The father of both Edward I and Edmund was Henry III. He had three daughters, but I don't think that any of them were ahead of Edmund.

Carol

You're right on that of course, but it was a good try by Bolingbroke who I actually quite like. I would be the last to claim to be an authority on 14th century history. Was asked by Carol to summarise Ian Mortimer's reasons why Bolingbroke claimed the throne (and the Crouchback thing)
 

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

The Mortimers (all named Edmund or Roger, so it seems) were also descended from Edward III's second relevant son Lionel, whilst John of Gaunt was junior to him. Simple primogeniture would put the Mortimers ahead of Bolingbroke.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

I think you may have missed one of my earlier posts so I'll try to clarify.

Henry III did not change the primogeniture of the succession - males always took precedence and his daughters didn't take precedence over Edmund his younger son
Edward and Edmund were as you say brothers and got on well
In 1290 Edward changed the succession and said that his sons (primarily Edward II) and daughters up to 1290 would take precedence over any future sons of his own, and Edmund (Crouchback - I use this for clarification not because it was a term used then) and his children. So he didn't disinherit Edmund, just pushed him behind his daughters born before 1290. The descendent of one of these daughters was Edmund Mortimer.
In 1376 Edward III changed the succession back to primogeniture which meant his heirs were Richard II and after him John of Gaunt and Henry Bolingbroke
In 1399 Richard II changed the succession back to Edward I's arrangment making Edmund Mortimer heir again and discarding Bolingbroke
Bolingbroke in claiming the throne said that Edward I and subsequent kings had no right to change the successsion so claimed the throne through the primogeniture which had always been the custom up to Henry III.

I hope this helps a bit, It is quite complex? H



________________________________

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Disinherited is the wrong word - I was rushing out to work, many apologies. Edward I in 1290 put his daughters by Eleanor in line to the throne ahead of any sons he might have from his second marriage and Edmund and his children; which meant that Edmund's children were way back in the queue. I don't think he did it through malice, he was fond of Edmund, and no doubt any younger sons he might have had by the second marriage. And he clearly didn't do it because Edmund had any 'defects' Again may apologies!

Carol responds:

Are you sure? Edward I was Edmund's brother. Edward I did have a lot of sons, but the only son by his first wife who survived was the future Edward II. I can see him putting his daughters by his first wife ahead of his sons by his second wife, especially when E II's last older brother, Alphonso, died, but Edmund as Edward I's brother would have been pushed back in the queue by Edward I's children, anyway, just as George Clarence was pushed back by Edward IV's children.

The father of both Edward I and Edmund was Henry III. He had three daughters, but I don't think that any of them were ahead of Edmund.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think you may have missed one of my earlier posts so I'll try to clarify.
>  
> Henry III did not change the primogeniture of the succession - males always took precedence and his daughters didn't take precedence over Edmund his younger son Edward and Edmund were as you say brothers and got on well In 1290 Edward changed the succession and said that his sons (primarily Edward II) and daughters up to 1290 would take precedence over any future sons of his own, and Edmund (Crouchback - I use this for clarification not because it was a term used then) and his children. So he didn't disinherit Edmund, just pushed him behind his daughters born before 1290. The descendent of one of these daughters was Edmund Mortimer.
> In 1376 Edward III changed the succession back to primogeniture which meant his heirs were Richard II and after him John of Gaunt and Henry Bolingbroke In 1399 Richard II changed the succession back to Edward I's arrangment making Edmund Mortimer heir again and discarding Bolingbroke
> Bolingbroke in claiming the throne said that Edward I and subsequent kings had no right to change the successsion so claimed the throne through the primogeniture which had always been the custom up to Henry III.
>  
> I hope this helps a bit, It is quite complex?  H

Carol responds:

Thanks. That clears up the Edward/Edmund part. (I still think that Edward I was motivated by the fact that he kept losing sons but his daughters seemed to thrive; maybe he also loved his first wife but not his second? It's the sons from his second marriage who seem, even more than Edmund, who was behind *them*, to have been pushed to the back of the line.

I understand why Edward III, with all those sons, would want to change back to primogeniture and why Richard II would want to change back to E III's arrangement to make the Mortimers his heirs (Edward III's second son Lionel's daughter, Philippa, was married to Edmund Mortimer, and he needed to make descent through the female line acceptable). So it's clear to me up to that point (thank you!).

But I don't see how primogeniture would help Henry Bolingbroke except to make him the rightful heir (as opposed to the rightful *king*, which he certainly wasn't) until and unless Richard II had a son. I thought that he had tried to strengthen his claim by making it through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster, rather than through his father, John of Gaunt, who was younger than Lionel (which is where the necessity to make Edmund the "older" brother comes in.

By the way, can you recommend a good biography of Bolingbroke/H IV? I have one of Richard II and can barely get through it, I guess because I find him oddly uncompelling. In some ways, they both set the stage for WOTR, as did Henry V with his irresponsible French wars and early death.

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The Mortimers (all named Edmund or Roger, so it seems) were also descended from Edward III's second relevant son Lionel, whilst John of Gaunt was junior to him. Simple primogeniture would put the Mortimers ahead of Bolingbroke.

Carol responds:

Even though they were descended from Lionel's daughter, Philippa? Where do daughters fit into simple primogeniture (as opposed to Salic Law where they don't fit in at all)?

Carol

Her sons take precedence over Edward III's next line.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback



"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The Mortimers (all named Edmund or Roger, so it seems) were also descended from Edward III's second relevant son Lionel, whilst John of Gaunt was junior to him. Simple primogeniture would put the Mortimers ahead of Bolingbroke.

Carol responds:

Even though they were descended from Lionel's daughter, Philippa? Where do daughters fit into simple primogeniture (as opposed to Salic Law where they don't fit in at all)?

Carol

You're right, they don't.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:25
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The Mortimers (all named Edmund or Roger, so it seems) were also descended from Edward III's second relevant son Lionel, whilst John of Gaunt was junior to him. Simple primogeniture would put the Mortimers ahead of Bolingbroke.

Carol responds:

Even though they were descended from Lionel's daughter, Philippa? Where do daughters fit into simple primogeniture (as opposed to Salic Law where they don't fit in at all)?

Carol

Yes Carol I would certainly recommend 'The Fears if Henry IV - the Life of England's Self-Made King' by Ian Mortimer. You can then explore all this yourself and probaby interpret it better than me, there are lots of appendices which go into all these settlements in a great deal of detail. It isn't very dear on amazon. As I said to Stephen I would be the last person to claim a detailed knowledge of 14th century politics.
Why it's also very good is that it explores the fall-out surrounding a person who is perceived to have usurped a throne, however justifiably, and you can relate this to Richard. It makes Henry a very sympathetic person and one who also had to keep dealing with all sorts of rebellions manipulated by those who have lost power.
Mortimer is, I would say, one of our most distinguished medieval historians. His Time Travellers Guide is a gem. He's made the odd comment about Richard  (the usual one about the princes) which could be interpreted as hostile but my guess is that it  comes more from a general feel than from scholarship. He is really the one to encourage and convert when you say you are looking for a historian who carries weight. He's a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the one the TV wheel in when they want to discuss anything pre 1485.  
Hope this helps  H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think you may have missed one of my earlier posts so I'll try to clarify.
>  
> Henry III did not change the primogeniture of the succession - males always took precedence and his daughters didn't take precedence over Edmund his younger son Edward and Edmund were as you say brothers and got on well In 1290 Edward changed the succession and said that his sons (primarily Edward II) and daughters up to 1290 would take precedence over any future sons of his own, and Edmund (Crouchback - I use this for clarification not because it was a term used then) and his children. So he didn't disinherit Edmund, just pushed him behind his daughters born before 1290. The descendent of one of these daughters was Edmund Mortimer.
> In 1376 Edward III changed the succession back to primogeniture which meant his heirs were Richard II and after him John of Gaunt and Henry Bolingbroke In 1399 Richard II changed the succession back to Edward I's arrangment making Edmund Mortimer heir again and discarding Bolingbroke
> Bolingbroke in claiming the throne said that Edward I and subsequent kings had no right to change the successsion so claimed the throne through the primogeniture which had always been the custom up to Henry III.
>  
> I hope this helps a bit, It is quite complex?  H

Carol responds:

Thanks. That clears up the Edward/Edmund part. (I still think that Edward I was motivated by the fact that he kept losing sons but his daughters seemed to thrive; maybe he also loved his first wife but not his second? It's the sons from his second marriage who seem, even more than Edmund, who was behind *them*, to have been pushed to the back of the line.

I understand why Edward III, with all those sons, would want to change back to primogeniture and why Richard II would want to change back to E III's arrangement to make the Mortimers his heirs (Edward III's second son Lionel's daughter, Philippa, was married to Edmund Mortimer, and he needed to make descent through the female line acceptable). So it's clear to me up to that point (thank you!).

But I don't see how primogeniture would help Henry Bolingbroke except to make him the rightful heir (as opposed to the rightful *king*, which he certainly wasn't) until and unless Richard II had a son. I thought that he had tried to strengthen his claim by making it through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster, rather than through his father, John of Gaunt, who was younger than Lionel (which is where the necessity to make Edmund the "older" brother comes in.

By the way, can you recommend a good biography of Bolingbroke/H IV? I have one of Richard II and can barely get through it, I guess because I find him oddly uncompelling. In some ways, they both set the stage for WOTR, as did Henry V with his irresponsible French wars and early death.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

> Even though they were descended from Lionel's daughter, Philippa? Where do
> daughters fit into simple primogeniture

First you run through the sons in age order, but if there are no sons, then
the girls in age order.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes Carol I would certainly recommend 'The Fears if Henry IV - the Life of England's Self-Made King' by Ian Mortimer. You can then explore all this yourself and probaby interpret it better than me, there are lots of appendices which go into all these settlements in a great deal of detail. It isn't very dear on amazon. As I said to Stephen I would be the last person to claim a detailed knowledge of 14th century politics.
> Why it's also very good is that it explores the fall-out surrounding a person who is perceived to have usurped a throne, however justifiably, and you can relate this to Richard. It makes Henry a very sympathetic person and one who also had to keep dealing with all sorts of rebellions manipulated by those who have lost power.
> Mortimer is, I would say, one of our most distinguished medieval historians. His Time Travellers Guide is a gem. He's made the odd comment about Richard  (the usual one about the princes) which could be interpreted as hostile but my guess is that it  comes more from a general feel than from scholarship. He is really the one to encourage and convert when you say you are looking for a historian who carries weight. He's a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the one the TV wheel in when they want to discuss anything pre 1485.  
> Hope this helps  H

Carol responds:

Yes, thanks very much. I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned Mortimer and didn't recall the title of his book in any case. I've added it to my Amazon wishlist for future reference. (Some idiot is trying to sell a new hardback edition for $550, but since the paperback sells for $10.77, I doubt he'll have any takers.)

I don't think he would listen to me if I tried to encourage and convert him. Maybe someone with a little more influence could persuade him, though. (All it would take, probably, is an examination of the primary documents, as opposed to the chronicles, to convert him, but getting him to do that would be another matter.)

Carol

I wouldn't dismiss him. He's not a Hicks or Starkey. He's the sort who lets the sources speak for themselves. Perhaps JAH is one who could do a bit of conversion on himl?
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes Carol I would certainly recommend 'The Fears if Henry IV - the Life of England's Self-Made King' by Ian Mortimer. You can then explore all this yourself and probaby interpret it better than me, there are lots of appendices which go into all these settlements in a great deal of detail. It isn't very dear on amazon. As I said to Stephen I would be the last person to claim a detailed knowledge of 14th century politics.
> Why it's also very good is that it explores the fall-out surrounding a person who is perceived to have usurped a throne, however justifiably, and you can relate this to Richard. It makes Henry a very sympathetic person and one who also had to keep dealing with all sorts of rebellions manipulated by those who have lost power.
> Mortimer is, I would say, one of our most distinguished medieval historians. His Time Travellers Guide is a gem. He's made the odd comment about Richard  (the usual one about the princes) which could be interpreted as hostile but my guess is that it  comes more from a general feel than from scholarship. He is really the one to encourage and convert when you say you are looking for a historian who carries weight. He's a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the one the TV wheel in when they want to discuss anything pre 1485.  
> Hope this helps  H

Carol responds:

Yes, thanks very much. I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned Mortimer and didn't recall the title of his book in any case. I've added it to my Amazon wishlist for future reference. (Some idiot is trying to sell a new hardback edition for $550, but since the paperback sells for $10.77, I doubt he'll have any takers.)

I don't think he would listen to me if I tried to encourage and convert him. Maybe someone with a little more influence could persuade him, though. (All it would take, probably, is an examination of the primary documents, as opposed to the chronicles, to convert him, but getting him to do that would be another matter.)

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Her sons take precedence over Edward III's next line.

Carol responds:

Which would be John of Gaunt and his legitimate son, Henry. That's what I thought. So Richard II didn't need to reverse anything since Edward III had already gone back to primogeniture (according to Ian Mortimer). But if a king had no surviving sons and his daughters had no male offspring, the daughters would be skipped in favor of the next male heir (as in the case of Edward IV, whose heir was George of Clarence until his first son was born).

If so, Ian Mortimer to the contrary, the Mortimer claim was stronger than Bolingbroke's. (Unless I'm misunderstanding Mortimer's argument, which is entirely possible.)

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> First you run through the sons in age order, but if there are no sons, then the girls in age order.
>
Carol responds:

I don't think so. Daughters were almost always passed over in favor of the king's next brother unless, as in Philippa's case, the daughter had a strong husband and at least one son. And a son's children also take precedence over a daughter. Look at Princess Anne, who is tenth in line after her brothers, one older and two younger, and their children, male and female. Of course, that's all about to change, but I don't want to go too far OT.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback


> I don't think so. Daughters were almost always passed over in favor of the
> king's next brother unless, as in Philippa's case, the daughter had a
> strong husband and at least one son.

That may just be realpolitik modifying the rules.

> And a son's children also take precedence over a daughter.

Yes, of course. The more senior candidate and their line always come before
a less senior candidate and their line.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't dismiss him. He's not a Hicks or Starkey. He's the sort who lets the sources speak for themselves. Perhaps JAH is one who could do a bit of conversion on himl?

Carol responds:

Maybe. Certainly, J A-H has more influence than any of us do.

Letting the sources speak for themselves (with explanation as needed where the language or concepts are complex) is an excellent way of dealing with official documents and possibly letters, but the chronicles are (IMO) another matter. You have to consider possible bias, areas of unreliability, gaps,contradictions between sources, known errors, and so forth. Croyland and Mancini, for example, are invaluable in helping us put events together, but it would be a serious mistake to treat them as factual, objective records. I'm not saying that Mortimer does that (I haven't read his book), only that the approach you describe for all its merits also has drawbacks. But so, of course, does interpreting sources. I have yet to read a biography that hasn't contained at least one serious mistake later corrected by another biographer--which is one reason I think it's time for a new one, and soon, before the "scoliosis equals hunchback" myth solidifies into "fact."

Carol

I was perhaps making a sweeping statement when I said that. You don't get made a FRHA without being an excellent practictioner and an excellent analyst. He has written books on Roger Mortimer, Edward III (perhaps his finest work) Henry IV and Henry V. I think if you look at this it should help
http://www.ianmortimer.com/about.htm
Now I think it was Paul who said he may be anti, but I honestly don't know. As you say, we desperately need a new biography from someone with historical clout. Killing the hunchback thing is like swotting flies; you think you've hit one and another one comes out of the woodwork to torment you. H 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 2:13
Subject: Re: Crouchback/Crookback

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't dismiss him. He's not a Hicks or Starkey. He's the sort who lets the sources speak for themselves. Perhaps JAH is one who could do a bit of conversion on himl?

Carol responds:

Maybe. Certainly, J A-H has more influence than any of us do.

Letting the sources speak for themselves (with explanation as needed where the language or concepts are complex) is an excellent way of dealing with official documents and possibly letters, but the chronicles are (IMO) another matter. You have to consider possible bias, areas of unreliability, gaps,contradictions between sources, known errors, and so forth. Croyland and Mancini, for example, are invaluable in helping us put events together, but it would be a serious mistake to treat them as factual, objective records. I'm not saying that Mortimer does that (I haven't read his book), only that the approach you describe for all its merits also has drawbacks. But so, of course, does interpreting sources. I have yet to read a biography that hasn't contained at least one serious mistake later corrected by another biographer--which is one reason I think it's time for a new one, and soon, before the "scoliosis equals hunchback" myth solidifies into "fact."

Carol