Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon

Flat 4,
16 Willoughby Road,
Ipswich,
IP2 8AP.

Tel: 01473-691347
smlark@...
Daily Mail Readers' Letters,
2 Derry Street,
London,
W8 5TT. 26 December 2003

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Saturday's article about Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon, and his hypothetical claim to the English Crown was fascinating. It has provoked several replies, some better informed than others.

* The "House of Clarence", which the Earl heads, is not descended from Henry V, as Mr. Griffin claims. Henry V had only two descendants: his son Henry VI and his son, Edward of Lancaster (I think he was illegitimate too), who both died in 1471. George, Duke of Clarence, who is the Earl of Loudon's ancestor, is the brother (or possibly the half-brother) of Edward IV.
* Henry VII was the first Tudor monarch, not Henry VIII, and the House of Windsor is descended from his marriage to Elizabeth of York. When the Beauforts, from whom Henry VII was descended, were legitimised, they were disqualified from the succession. Elizabeth was Edward IV's daughter; therefore Henry VII's only claim to the throne was by conquest. If you steal a television set it can never become your property; you cannot legally use it, sell it or give it away. A Crown is far more important than a television set.
* Richard III was not a usurper. If Edward IV was illegitimate, as Dr. Jones seems to have shown, then his children were also disqualified.
* A descendant of George II is not allowed to marry without the monarch's permission and may not marry a Catholic without forfeiting his right to succeed, together with that of children of that marriage. Thus Edward, Duke of Kent, father of Victoria, could not have legally married before marrying Victoria's mother and could not have had legitimate sons.

It is, of course, very confusing that, from 1215 to 1603, all Kings of England were called Henry, Edward or Richard. All their eldest sons (except Arthur, son of Henry VII, who lived from 1486-1502) were called Henry, Edward or Richard. I write, having met Dr. Jones twice at historical events.

Yours sincerely,



Stephen M. Lark

Just a couple of points Stephen -

You wrote:
"
If
> you steal a television set it can never become your
> property; you cannot legally use it, sell it or give
> it away. A Crown is far more important than a
> television set."

Actually though it isn't strictly so - if you were sat
on the throne and had been crowned it would be and was
argued that God had favoured you and therefore you
must have had the right to it irrespective of how many
people called you usurper or disputed your right to
the crown.
Who did have a right to it by 1485 is disputed - Henry
VII (co-heir general of John of Lancaster though in a
bastard line), Elizabeth of York (senior heir general
of Edward IV), the dead Richard III, Edward Earl of
Warwick (senior heir male of Richard Duke of York) and
to that you could through in a host of other with
claims of varying degree.

As to Edward IV's legitimacy of lack thereof - he was
undisputablly legitimate ie he was the son of a
married woman and convention and the law on that issue
hasn't changed a great deal a child born of a married
woman is always legitimate and assumed to be the child
of her husband. Jones has yet to convince me on a
couple of grounds 1) that Edward was a full term baby
and to prove conclusively that Richard of York
couldn't therefore be his father. 2) That if the
dates are so obvious to us why on earth didn't Richard
of York disown his eldest son - there was precedent
and Cecily Neville wouldn't have been the first
disgraced high born woman (the mid 15th Century was
full of them).

A final point - irrespective of the rights and wrongs
of Richard III's assumption of the throne he remains a
usurper - he wasn't the legal heir of either his
brother or his father. Even if you accept the
suggestion that Edward IV's marriage was invalid -
George of Clarence's son was the next lineal heir
irrespective of the attainder which if you read it
doesn't disbar him or his sister from the crown of
England. Its worth remembering that almost every King
in the 15th Century had been attainted at some point
it was no legal bar to the throne.








--- Stephen LARK <smlark@...>
wrote:
> Flat 4,
> 16 Willoughby Road,
> Ipswich,
> IP2 8AP.
>
> Tel: 01473-691347
> smlark@...
> Daily Mail Readers' Letters,
> 2 Derry Street,
> London,
> W8 5TT. 26 December 2003
>
> Dear Sir/ Madam,
>
> Saturday's article about Michael Hastings, Earl of
> Loudon, and his hypothetical claim to the English
> Crown was fascinating. It has provoked several
> replies, some better informed than others.
>
> * The "House of Clarence", which the Earl heads, is
> not descended from Henry V, as Mr. Griffin claims.
> Henry V had only two descendants: his son Henry VI
> and his son, Edward of Lancaster (I think he was
> illegitimate too), who both died in 1471. George,
> Duke of Clarence, who is the Earl of Loudon's
> ancestor, is the brother (or possibly the
> half-brother) of Edward IV.
> * Henry VII was the first Tudor monarch, not Henry
> VIII, and the House of Windsor is descended from his
> marriage to Elizabeth of York. When the Beauforts,
> from whom Henry VII was descended, were legitimised,
> they were disqualified from the succession.
> Elizabeth was Edward IV's daughter; therefore Henry
> VII's only claim to the throne was by conquest. If
> you steal a television set it can never become your
> property; you cannot legally use it, sell it or give
> it away. A Crown is far more important than a
> television set.
> * Richard III was not a usurper. If Edward IV was
> illegitimate, as Dr. Jones seems to have shown, then
> his children were also disqualified.
> * A descendant of George II is not allowed to marry
> without the monarch's permission and may not marry a
> Catholic without forfeiting his right to succeed,
> together with that of children of that marriage.
> Thus Edward, Duke of Kent, father of Victoria, could
> not have legally married before marrying Victoria's
> mother and could not have had legitimate sons.
>
> It is, of course, very confusing that, from 1215 to
> 1603, all Kings of England were called Henry, Edward
> or Richard. All their eldest sons (except Arthur,
> son of Henry VII, who lived from 1486-1502) were
> called Henry, Edward or Richard. I write, having met
> Dr. Jones twice at historical events.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Stephen M. Lark
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

>
> As to Edward IV's legitimacy of lack thereof - he was
> undisputablly legitimate ie he was the son of a
> married woman and convention and the law on that issue
> hasn't changed a great deal a child born of a married
> woman is always legitimate and assumed to be the child
> of her husband. Jones has yet to convince me on a
> couple of grounds 1) that Edward was a full term baby
> and to prove conclusively that Richard of York
> couldn't therefore be his father. 2) That if the
> dates are so obvious to us why on earth didn't Richard
> of York disown his eldest son - there was precedent
> and Cecily Neville wouldn't have been the first
> disgraced high born woman (the mid 15th Century was
> full of them).
>

Tim

I am relieved to hear that I am not the only person who is
unconvinced by the Jones thesis! For me there are three problems:
1) There is nothing in the dates to prevent Edward IV from being the
Duke of York's son. He was born on 28th April 1442. according to
Jones, the Duke did not return from Pontoise until 20th August 1441 -
a gap of eight months and eight days. There is nothing to prevent a
child born after that gestation period from growing up entirely
healthy and of normal size. By a curious coincidence, I was born
after a maximum possible gestation of eight months and seven days, a
bit small admittedly (a shade under six pounds), but half an hour in
an incubator was all that was necessary. Apparently I soon caught up
on the size front, and having been a healthy infant I became a
healthy adult, of a stature that is entirely commensurate with that
of my parents. My brother, incidentally, was also three weeks'
early, and generally healthy. Edward's low-key baptism is easily
explained by his being early, and initially a bit small and fragile.
Given that she had 11 children in 15 years, Cecily Neville was
obviously highly fertile; the obvious explanation for Edward's
arrival is that she and the Duke celebrated his triumphant return
from Pontoise in bed and Edward was the slightly premature result.

2) The rumour that Edward was not the Duke's son was not put about
until 1469, and then by his enemies. I would have found it much more
convincing if it had emerged earlier, preferably in his father's
lifetime or at the beginning of his own reign.

3) Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York. Likenesses are a
funny thing. My brother and I both take after our father and
resemblances to our mother are hard to find (the main thing is the
eyebrows). In big families the law of probabilities suggests you
will get some who look like the father, some like the mother, and
the majority in between. The same tends to happen with height. Henry
VIII seems to have been physically very like Edward IV and quite
unlike his own father. Just one of those genetic oddities.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > As to Edward IV's legitimacy of lack thereof - he was
> > undisputablly legitimate ie he was the son of a
> > married woman and convention and the law on that issue
> > hasn't changed a great deal a child born of a married
> > woman is always legitimate and assumed to be the child
> > of her husband. Jones has yet to convince me on a
> > couple of grounds 1) that Edward was a full term baby
> > and to prove conclusively that Richard of York
> > couldn't therefore be his father. 2) That if the
> > dates are so obvious to us why on earth didn't Richard
> > of York disown his eldest son - there was precedent
> > and Cecily Neville wouldn't have been the first
> > disgraced high born woman (the mid 15th Century was
> > full of them).
> >
>
> Tim
>
> I am relieved to hear that I am not the only person who is
> unconvinced by the Jones thesis! For me there are three problems:
> 1) There is nothing in the dates to prevent Edward IV from being
the
> Duke of York's son. He was born on 28th April 1442. according to
> Jones, the Duke did not return from Pontoise until 20th August
1441 -
> a gap of eight months and eight days. There is nothing to prevent
a
> child born after that gestation period from growing up entirely
> healthy and of normal size. By a curious coincidence, I was born
> after a maximum possible gestation of eight months and seven days,
a
> bit small admittedly (a shade under six pounds), but half an hour
in
> an incubator was all that was necessary. Apparently I soon caught
up
> on the size front, and having been a healthy infant I became a
> healthy adult, of a stature that is entirely commensurate with that
> of my parents. My brother, incidentally, was also three weeks'
> early, and generally healthy. Edward's low-key baptism is easily
> explained by his being early, and initially a bit small and
fragile.
> Given that she had 11 children in 15 years, Cecily Neville was
> obviously highly fertile; the obvious explanation for Edward's
> arrival is that she and the Duke celebrated his triumphant return
> from Pontoise in bed and Edward was the slightly premature result.

I think there is some misunderstanding here. It is not a case of
Michael K Jones having to "prove" his thesis scientifically or have
it rejected out of hand. Proof either way, plainly, cannot be had
without DNA analysis.
Also, there seems to be confusion regarding the significance of the
date 20th August. As I understand it, there is now evidence that York
was in the Pontoise area until this date. Which means it would have
been a further few days before he reached Rouen. A reasonable
earliest date for Edward's conception would perhaps be 24th August -
and that would rely on Cecily's conveniently ovulating at that
precise time! No matter how fertile a woman is (and I have no problem
with Cecily conceiving first month - I had a similar knack!), she
only has one fertile window a month!

Also, we are discussing calendar months in quite a vague way. Actual
gestation period (from conception, rather than date of last period)
is average 38 weeks. Edward's earliest possible "due date" would
therefore have been about 19th May, which as you say would make him
precisely three weeks early - AT BEST. Duke Richard may have had to
wait almost another 4 weeks after his return to Rouen before Cecily
fell fertile again.
So, yes, Edward could have been York's, but we now have reason than
before to give more credence to the contemporary rumours of his
hsving been someone else's son (in deference to Tim, I avoid the
term 'illegitimacy' - he has a point).

>
> 2) The rumour that Edward was not the Duke's son was not put about
> until 1469, and then by his enemies. I would have found it much
more
> convincing if it had emerged earlier, preferably in his father's
> lifetime or at the beginning of his own reign.

I tend to agree. It would have been nice if we had accusations from
the Lancastrians during York's lifetime. However, perhaps they saw
themselves as folk living in one of those proverbial glass houses.
Personally, I feel it is unlikely that Edward of Lancaster was Henry
VI's, so it is hardly surprising that neither side made overt
accusations against the other's "heir".

>
> 3) Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York. Likenesses are a
> funny thing. My brother and I both take after our father and
> resemblances to our mother are hard to find (the main thing is the
> eyebrows). In big families the law of probabilities suggests you
> will get some who look like the father, some like the mother, and
> the majority in between. The same tends to happen with height.
Henry
> VIII seems to have been physically very like Edward IV and quite
> unlike his own father. Just one of those genetic oddities.

They are indeed. If it were only a case of that, it wouldn't be much.
But Edward doesn't seem to have shared a single personality trait
with York either.

> Ann

I would agree, Ann, that if that were all we had it wouldn't be very
convincing. But it isn't, and I find it interesting that those
hostile to Jones' theory (which cannot, as I say, be 'proved' either
way) focus only on these points. What interests me FAR more than all
this - and Jones too, incidentally - is the way the theory slides so
many pieces into place. Clarence makes sense. . . . The Woodvilles
make sense. . . . Richard's actions and expressed fears in 1483 make
sense. . . . Cecily's apparent support for Richard's "usurpation"
makes sense. . . . Hallelujah!
I hate history books scraping by on
on "unstable", "unpredictable", "contradictory", "flighty", "inscrutab
lle" and "enigmatic" characters. And isn't every book about this
period crammed with them? And doesn't this theory suddenly make them
all quite rational?
So it can't be proved, but THIS is why I believe it cannot be
dismissed.

Marie

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:

> I am relieved to hear that I am not the only person who is
> unconvinced by the Jones thesis! For me there are three problems:
> 1) There is nothing in the dates to prevent Edward IV from being
the
> Duke of York's son. He was born on 28th April 1442. according to
> Jones, the Duke did not return from Pontoise until 20th August
1441 -
> a gap of eight months and eight days. There is nothing to prevent
a
> child born after that gestation period from growing up entirely
> healthy and of normal size. By a curious coincidence, I was born
> after a maximum possible gestation of eight months and seven days,
a
> bit small admittedly (a shade under six pounds), but half an hour
in
> an incubator was all that was necessary. Apparently I soon caught
up
> on the size front, and having been a healthy infant I became a
> healthy adult, of a stature that is entirely commensurate with that
> of my parents. My brother, incidentally, was also three weeks'
> early, and generally healthy. Edward's low-key baptism is easily
> explained by his being early, and initially a bit small and
fragile.
> Given that she had 11 children in 15 years, Cecily Neville was
> obviously highly fertile; the obvious explanation for Edward's
> arrival is that she and the Duke celebrated his triumphant return
> from Pontoise in bed and Edward was the slightly premature result.
>
> 2) The rumour that Edward was not the Duke's son was not put about
> until 1469, and then by his enemies. I would have found it much
more
> convincing if it had emerged earlier, preferably in his father's
> lifetime or at the beginning of his own reign.
>
> 3) Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York. Likenesses are a
> funny thing. My brother and I both take after our father and
> resemblances to our mother are hard to find (the main thing is the
> eyebrows). In big families the law of probabilities suggests you
> will get some who look like the father, some like the mother, and
> the majority in between. The same tends to happen with height.
Henry
> VIII seems to have been physically very like Edward IV and quite
> unlike his own father. Just one of those genetic oddities.
>
> Ann

You cover many of the same things I was thinking, Ann.

Regarding gestation times, my first child was 16 days early and
weighed eight pounds. My daughter just had a baby who was due on
January 5 and arrived on December 20, and he also weighed eight
pounds. If Edward was born eight months and seven days after the
last possible romp by the Duke of York and his duchess, he would have
been a 37-week baby, and 37 to 40 weeks is the length of a normal
full-term pregnancy. First pregnancies tend to be somewhat shorter.
At 32 weeks many babies survive and at 34 weeks most do, and still
smaller infants did occasionally even in Medieval times.

If he was somewhat smaller and less full-term than that, that could
ineed account for his low-key baptism ceremony.

I also wonderwhy the Duke would have accepted Edward as his own if he
had known the timing was impossible. It wasn't a situation of the
wife being "forgiven" because she was an heiress with a big thumping
dowry...the Duke had title and wealth of his own that far exceeded
hers. Nor could it have been because the wife had a better bloodline.
And it wasn't because the husband had been childless for many years
and was willing to accept an heir no matter where he came from -- I'm
thinking of Henry VI -- because both the Duke and Cecily were in
their early prime, and within the year there was another son,
followed in quick succession by ten more children.

I have read that Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York, but I
have also read that Edward and George resembled each other. As Ann
said, resemblances in families are a funny thing. My twins look more
like their other brother and sister than like each other, and my
eldest son is the image of my brother and resembles his father and I
very little.

I am also made suspicious of the stories of Edward's illegitimacy
because they say he was fathered by an archer from Rouen. Somehow
that doesn't sound like Cecily Neville to me, but it does sound like
the standard casting for a rumor to disparage someone of the nobility
or higher. An archer was certainly a commoner, not even a knight.
It reminds me of the business of Lambert Simnel's father being a
baker/organ-maker/some kind craftsman and Perkin Warbeck's coming
from a notoriously rough lower-class family.

And I would question why Cecily Neville would want to engage in
adultery, at that time or ever. She was never described as a loose
woman, and she certainly had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I remain skeptical.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > I am relieved to hear that I am not the only person who is
> > unconvinced by the Jones thesis! For me there are three problems:
> > 1) There is nothing in the dates to prevent Edward IV from being
> the
> > Duke of York's son. He was born on 28th April 1442. according to
> > Jones, the Duke did not return from Pontoise until 20th August
> 1441 -
> > a gap of eight months and eight days. There is nothing to
prevent
> a
> > child born after that gestation period from growing up entirely
> > healthy and of normal size. By a curious coincidence, I was born
> > after a maximum possible gestation of eight months and seven
days,
> a
> > bit small admittedly (a shade under six pounds), but half an hour
> in
> > an incubator was all that was necessary. Apparently I soon caught
> up
> > on the size front, and having been a healthy infant I became a
> > healthy adult, of a stature that is entirely commensurate with
that
> > of my parents. My brother, incidentally, was also three weeks'
> > early, and generally healthy. Edward's low-key baptism is easily
> > explained by his being early, and initially a bit small and
> fragile.
> > Given that she had 11 children in 15 years, Cecily Neville was
> > obviously highly fertile; the obvious explanation for Edward's
> > arrival is that she and the Duke celebrated his triumphant return
> > from Pontoise in bed and Edward was the slightly premature result.
> >
> > 2) The rumour that Edward was not the Duke's son was not put
about
> > until 1469, and then by his enemies. I would have found it much
> more
> > convincing if it had emerged earlier, preferably in his father's
> > lifetime or at the beginning of his own reign.
> >
> > 3) Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York. Likenesses are a
> > funny thing. My brother and I both take after our father and
> > resemblances to our mother are hard to find (the main thing is
the
> > eyebrows). In big families the law of probabilities suggests you
> > will get some who look like the father, some like the mother, and
> > the majority in between. The same tends to happen with height.
> Henry
> > VIII seems to have been physically very like Edward IV and quite
> > unlike his own father. Just one of those genetic oddities.
> >
> > Ann
>
> You cover many of the same things I was thinking, Ann.
>
> Regarding gestation times, my first child was 16 days early and
> weighed eight pounds. My daughter just had a baby who was due on
> January 5 and arrived on December 20, and he also weighed eight
> pounds.

Two weeks 2 days early - more maturethan Edward at best possible.


If Edward was born eight months and seven days after the
> last possible romp by the Duke of York and his duchess, he would
have
> been a 37-week baby, and 37 to 40 weeks is the length of a normal
> full-term pregnancy. First pregnancies tend to be somewhat
shorter.

a) Edward was 3rd baby

b) First pregnancies tend to be somewhat longer - 1 week longer if I
remember. Not that it applies.



> At 32 weeks many babies survive and at 34 weeks most do, and still
> smaller infants did occasionally even in Medieval times.

Yes, but sadly, many would have had problems, as they still do. Would
you have been happy for your babies to arrive that early?

> If he was somewhat smaller and less full-term than that, that could
> ineed account for his low-key baptism ceremony.
>
> I also wonderwhy the Duke would have accepted Edward as his own if
he
> had known the timing was impossible.

But he wouldn't, would he? I said on recent post that omothers
typically know. Katy will be with me here - within a very few days -
certainly within 2 weeks - of period being overdue, there are
symptoms. The father gets nothing of that unless he's told. The
limits of pregnancy simply weren't understaood then as they are now.
BUT it was a held as fact that boys gestated more quickly than girls
because by nature they were "hotter" than girls (humours). So when
Cecily gave birth 8 months after York's return, but to a very lusty
baby boy, that would have seemed adequate explanation. Only Cecily
herself, if she had been unfaithful during York's absence, and begun
to feel pregnany before his return, may have been uncoinvinced. And
if Edward had grown up very like her lover. . . . .


It wasn't a situation of the
> wife being "forgiven" because she was an heiress with a big
thumping
> dowry...the Duke had title and wealth of his own that far exceeded
> hers. Nor could it have been because the wife had a better
bloodline.
> And it wasn't because the husband had been childless for many years
> and was willing to accept an heir no matter where he came from --
I'm
> thinking of Henry VI -- because both the Duke and Cecily were in
> their early prime, and within the year there was another son,
> followed in quick succession by ten more children.

see above!

>
> I have read that Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York, but I
> have also read that Edward and George resembled each other.

I think you're referring to Molinet's remark that the "Richard Duke
of York" pretender (ie "Warbeck") looked like "the Duke of Clarence".
Now, Molinet had never seen George of Clarence, but he did routinely
refer to "Lambert Simnel" as Clarence rather than Warwick, and I
think he was probably trying to say that "Warbeck" looked like the
boy noted in the Malines town accounts for 1486 as Warwick (whom
Molinet had no doubt seen). It is possible that both he and the later
pretender ("Warbeck") were both the same person - ie the boy,
probably a mysterious member of the House of York, brought up by
Margaret of Burgundy at her household in Binche from 1478, and who
disappears from Binche accounts after December 1486. In which case we
have no evidence as to resemblance of Clarence and Edward. No English
sources mention any such resemblance, and the bones tentatively
identified as Clarence's are of an individual 5ft 5 in tall.

As Ann
> said, resemblances in families are a funny thing. My twins look
more
> like their other brother and sister than like each other, and my
> eldest son is the image of my brother and resembles his father and
I
> very little.

Why shoul they look more like each other than their siblings? They
are only fraternal twins. My twin brother is dark and outgoing. I am
fair and (usually) reserved. However, I think there is actually a lot
of resemblance, as there will be as all siblings will share aout 50%
of their genes, and one of my brother's daughters, in particular, is
a lot like me.

>
> I am also made suspicious of the stories of Edward's illegitimacy
> because they say he was fathered by an archer from Rouen. Somehow
> that doesn't sound like Cecily Neville to me, but it does sound
like
> the standard casting for a rumor to disparage someone of the
nobility
> or higher. An archer was certainly a commoner, not even a knight.
> It reminds me of the business of Lambert Simnel's father being a
> baker/organ-maker/some kind craftsman and Perkin Warbeck's coming
> from a notoriously rough lower-class family.
>
> And I would question why Cecily Neville would want to engage in
> adultery, at that time or ever. She was never described as a loose
> woman, and she certainly had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
>
> I remain skeptical.
> Katy

You're entitled to. But I can't help thinking of a documentary on
Camilla Parker-Bowles' great-granny on last week. Mistress of Edward
VIII (amongst others less exalted). And an older aristoractric lady
interviewed for the prog. explained - well, everybody got married so
young. There was just a different set of values. You didn't expect to
marry the love of your life - or if you didn't, keep getting divorced
until you managed it, as people do now. You made do, and sought
happiness outside the marriage. And kept up appearances. Both parties
to marriages understood this, and treated each other with courtesy.
Nothing to gain?This reminds me of Marie de France's Breton Lays, and
the adulterous wives in there, very sympathetically regarded.

Nature is nature, and york seems to have been a short, plain-faced,
boring guy. One for whom I have enormous respect, but not the answer
to the prayers of the 15th century's answer to a young Julia Roberts.
And there is such a thing as a sex drive, which knows nothing of
reason.

Marie

>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > I am relieved to hear that I am not the only person who is
> > > unconvinced by the Jones thesis! For me there are three
problems:
> > > 1) There is nothing in the dates to prevent Edward IV from
being
> > the
> > > Duke of York's son. He was born on 28th April 1442. according
to
> > > Jones, the Duke did not return from Pontoise until 20th August
> > 1441 -
> > > a gap of eight months and eight days. There is nothing to
> prevent
> > a
> > > child born after that gestation period from growing up entirely
> > > healthy and of normal size. By a curious coincidence, I was
born
> > > after a maximum possible gestation of eight months and seven
> days,
> > a
> > > bit small admittedly (a shade under six pounds), but half an
hour
> > in
> > > an incubator was all that was necessary. Apparently I soon
caught
> > up
> > > on the size front, and having been a healthy infant I became a
> > > healthy adult, of a stature that is entirely commensurate with
> that
> > > of my parents. My brother, incidentally, was also three weeks'
> > > early, and generally healthy. Edward's low-key baptism is
easily
> > > explained by his being early, and initially a bit small and
> > fragile.
> > > Given that she had 11 children in 15 years, Cecily Neville was
> > > obviously highly fertile; the obvious explanation for Edward's
> > > arrival is that she and the Duke celebrated his triumphant
return
> > > from Pontoise in bed and Edward was the slightly premature
result.
> > >
> > > 2) The rumour that Edward was not the Duke's son was not put
> about
> > > until 1469, and then by his enemies. I would have found it much
> > more
> > > convincing if it had emerged earlier, preferably in his
father's
> > > lifetime or at the beginning of his own reign.
> > >
> > > 3) Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York. Likenesses are
a
> > > funny thing. My brother and I both take after our father and
> > > resemblances to our mother are hard to find (the main thing is
> the
> > > eyebrows). In big families the law of probabilities suggests
you
> > > will get some who look like the father, some like the mother,
and
> > > the majority in between. The same tends to happen with height.
> > Henry
> > > VIII seems to have been physically very like Edward IV and
quite
> > > unlike his own father. Just one of those genetic oddities.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > You cover many of the same things I was thinking, Ann.
> >
> > Regarding gestation times, my first child was 16 days early and
> > weighed eight pounds. My daughter just had a baby who was due on
> > January 5 and arrived on December 20, and he also weighed eight
> > pounds.
>
> Two weeks 2 days early - more maturethan Edward at best possible.
>
>
> If Edward was born eight months and seven days after the
> > last possible romp by the Duke of York and his duchess, he would
> have
> > been a 37-week baby, and 37 to 40 weeks is the length of a normal
> > full-term pregnancy. First pregnancies tend to be somewhat
> shorter.
>
> a) Edward was 3rd baby
>
> b) First pregnancies tend to be somewhat longer - 1 week longer if
I
> remember. Not that it applies.
>
>
>
> > At 32 weeks many babies survive and at 34 weeks most do, and
still
> > smaller infants did occasionally even in Medieval times.
>
> Yes, but sadly, many would have had problems, as they still do.
Would
> you have been happy for your babies to arrive that early?
>
> > If he was somewhat smaller and less full-term than that, that
could
> > ineed account for his low-key baptism ceremony.
> >
> > I also wonderwhy the Duke would have accepted Edward as his own
if
> he
> > had known the timing was impossible.
>
> But he wouldn't, would he? I said on recent post that omothers
> typically know. Katy will be with me here - within a very few days -

> certainly within 2 weeks - of period being overdue, there are
> symptoms. The father gets nothing of that unless he's told. The
> limits of pregnancy simply weren't understaood then as they are
now.
> BUT it was a held as fact that boys gestated more quickly than
girls
> because by nature they were "hotter" than girls (humours). So when
> Cecily gave birth 8 months after York's return, but to a very lusty
> baby boy, that would have seemed adequate explanation. Only Cecily
> herself, if she had been unfaithful during York's absence, and
begun
> to feel pregnany before his return, may have been uncoinvinced. And
> if Edward had grown up very like her lover. . . . .
>
>
> It wasn't a situation of the
> > wife being "forgiven" because she was an heiress with a big
> thumping
> > dowry...the Duke had title and wealth of his own that far
exceeded
> > hers. Nor could it have been because the wife had a better
> bloodline.
> > And it wasn't because the husband had been childless for many
years
> > and was willing to accept an heir no matter where he came from --
> I'm
> > thinking of Henry VI -- because both the Duke and Cecily were in
> > their early prime, and within the year there was another son,
> > followed in quick succession by ten more children.
>
> see above!
>
> >
> > I have read that Edward IV didn't look like the Duke of York, but
I
> > have also read that Edward and George resembled each other.
>
> I think you're referring to Molinet's remark that the "Richard Duke
> of York" pretender (ie "Warbeck") looked like "the Duke of
Clarence".
> Now, Molinet had never seen George of Clarence, but he did
routinely
> refer to "Lambert Simnel" as Clarence rather than Warwick, and I
> think he was probably trying to say that "Warbeck" looked like the
> boy noted in the Malines town accounts for 1486 as Warwick (whom
> Molinet had no doubt seen). It is possible that both he and the
later
> pretender ("Warbeck") were both the same person - ie the boy,
> probably a mysterious member of the House of York, brought up by
> Margaret of Burgundy at her household in Binche from 1478, and who
> disappears from Binche accounts after December 1486. In which case
we
> have no evidence as to resemblance of Clarence and Edward. No
English
> sources mention any such resemblance, and the bones tentatively
> identified as Clarence's are of an individual 5ft 5 in tall.
>
> As Ann
> > said, resemblances in families are a funny thing. My twins look
> more
> > like their other brother and sister than like each other, and my
> > eldest son is the image of my brother and resembles his father
and
> I
> > very little.
>
> Why shoul they look more like each other than their siblings? They
> are only fraternal twins. My twin brother is dark and outgoing. I
am
> fair and (usually) reserved. However, I think there is actually a
lot
> of resemblance, as there will be as all siblings will share aout
50%
> of their genes, and one of my brother's daughters, in particular,
is
> a lot like me.
>
> >
> > I am also made suspicious of the stories of Edward's illegitimacy
> > because they say he was fathered by an archer from Rouen.
Somehow
> > that doesn't sound like Cecily Neville to me, but it does sound
> like
> > the standard casting for a rumor to disparage someone of the
> nobility
> > or higher. An archer was certainly a commoner, not even a
knight.
> > It reminds me of the business of Lambert Simnel's father being a
> > baker/organ-maker/some kind craftsman and Perkin Warbeck's coming
> > from a notoriously rough lower-class family.
> >
> > And I would question why Cecily Neville would want to engage in
> > adultery, at that time or ever. She was never described as a
loose
> > woman, and she certainly had nothing to gain and everything to
lose.
> >
> > I remain skeptical.
> > Katy
>
> You're entitled to. But I can't help thinking of a documentary on
> Camilla Parker-Bowles' great-granny on last week. Mistress of
Edward
> VIII (amongst others less exalted). And an older aristoractric lady
> interviewed for the prog. explained - well, everybody got married
so
> young. There was just a different set of values. You didn't expect
to
> marry the love of your life - or if you didn't, keep getting
divorced
> until you managed it, as people do now. You made do, and sought
> happiness outside the marriage. And kept up appearances. Both
parties
> to marriages understood this, and treated each other with courtesy.
> Nothing to gain?This reminds me of Marie de France's Breton Lays,
and
> the adulterous wives in there, very sympathetically regarded.
>
> Nature is nature, and york seems to have been a short, plain-
faced,
> boring guy. One for whom I have enormous respect, but not the
answer
> to the prayers of the 15th century's answer to a young Julia
Roberts.
> And there is such a thing as a sex drive, which knows nothing of
> reason.
>
> Marie
>
Sorry for repeating the entire post(s) but I couldn't find a
convenient place to snip.

Well, it's an interesting idea, though a new one to me. I have great
respect for the knowledge of some of the people in this group, and if
you think the idea is plausible I'll definitely open my mind to it.
What is the name of the book where the info was laid out? Is
it "Bosworth 1485" that was mentioned? I'd like to read more.

Katy

> I also wonderwhy the Duke would have accepted Edward as his own if
> he
> > had known the timing was impossible.
>
> But he wouldn't, would he? I said on recent post that omothers
> typically know. Katy will be with me here - within a very few
days -
> certainly within 2 weeks - of period being overdue, there are
> symptoms. The father gets nothing of that unless he's told.

Marie

Having never been pregnant I cannot claim to be an expert in this
sphere. However, I am under the impression that the earliest signs
of pregnancy are quite subtle and can easily be mistaken for
something else - and vice versa. And if Cecily began to be
suspicious, remember that 17 years is a very long time to keep quiet
about something as important as the paternity of the heir to the
greatest magnate in the country. Although the precise length
of 'normal' gestation has only been established recently, and until
very recently estimates of expected date of birth were just that -
estimates - people in the 15th century would know what was usual. I
would suspect that there was a good deal of sniggering when Edward
IV - fully developed or not - arrived eight months and eight days
after the Duke's return from Pontoise (there were apparently some
very pointed questions from my father's numerous old aunts after my
precipitate arrival!) Just the sort of thing to prompt the Duke to
ask questions. There is nothing to suggest that he was lacking in
intelligence, so if he had reason to doubt, the doubts would surely
have emerged.


> Nature is nature, and york seems to have been a short, plain-
faced,
> boring guy. One for whom I have enormous respect, but not the
answer
> to the prayers of the 15th century's answer to a young Julia
Roberts.


Indeed, nature is nature, and sexual attraction is not necessarily
based on looks.

For the record, since you told me in a previous post not to reject
the Jones thesis out of hand, since it provides an explanation for a
number of curiosities, I have not rejected it out of hand. I have
simply examined it carefully and found flaws.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > I also wonderwhy the Duke would have accepted Edward as his own
if
> > he
> > > had known the timing was impossible.
> >
> > But he wouldn't, would he? I said on recent post that omothers
> > typically know. Katy will be with me here - within a very few
> days -
> > certainly within 2 weeks - of period being overdue, there are
> > symptoms. The father gets nothing of that unless he's told.
>
> Marie
>
> Having never been pregnant I cannot claim to be an expert in this
> sphere. However, I am under the impression that the earliest signs
> of pregnancy are quite subtle and can easily be mistaken for
> something else - and vice versa.

Well, that has not been my experience. Nor that of many other people
I know. (Sorry guys) there is nothing very subtle about exploding
breasts, dizzy turns & black-outs, and green salad starting to taste
like turpentine. In any case, time gives the answer: were these
pregnancy symptoms or a false alarm?


And if Cecily began to be
> suspicious, remember that 17 years is a very long time to keep
quiet
> about something as important as the paternity of the heir to the
> greatest magnate in the country.

So what would you have done? I've never heard of a single instance of
a medieval lady admitting to having fathered her lord's heir in
adultery. But surely this must have occurred from time to time. So it
would seem that we don't know because they didn't own up (the first
person Cecily would have had to admit her guilt to would have been
her confessor, not her husband, and I suspect he may well have told
her she would do more hurt by making the affair public than by her
discretion); or because, even if they told their husbands, they in
their turn chose to keep quiet. With no DNA tests there was always
the risk for both the mother and her husband that they would be
disowning their own offspring. This is the very reason why, as Tim
rightly points out, the offspring of a married woman is for legal
purposes always presumed to be the child of her husband.
And this was after all a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.
It would not have helped York in any way to have had it become public
knowledge that, just while he was enjoying the most glorious military
triumph of his career, during which he was REALLY BRAVE, his wife was
busy making a cuckold of him with an archer; and that consequently
his strapping, handsome son and heir, whom everybody admired, was so
tall & handsome and athletic preceisly because he was wasn't his!
That just wasn't the way things worked amongst the aristocracy,
either then or in Camilla Parker-Bowles' great-granny's day.

Although the precise length
> of 'normal' gestation has only been established recently, and until
> very recently estimates of expected date of birth were just that -
> estimates - people in the 15th century would know what was usual. I
> would suspect that there was a good deal of sniggering when Edward
> IV - fully developed or not - arrived eight months and eight days
> after the Duke's return from Pontoise (there were apparently some
> very pointed questions from my father's numerous old aunts after my
> precipitate arrival!) Just the sort of thing to prompt the Duke to
> ask questions. There is nothing to suggest that he was lacking in
> intelligence, so if he had reason to doubt, the doubts would surely
> have emerged.

Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show that
much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no idea of
the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed Richard lay 2
years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to fall
about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely believed
to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was sniggering -
hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the Duke's face.
Anyhow, as I said, even if he did suspect I don't think he would have
said anything. Put it this way, if I were writing a novel based on a
completely fictitious medieval duke & duchess whose heir was
conceived in this way, I wouldn't have the Duke denounce his heir as
I personally wouldn't find that at all convincing - there is just no
precedent for it as far as I am aware.


>
> > Nature is nature, and york seems to have been a short, plain-
> faced,
> > boring guy. One for whom I have enormous respect, but not the
> answer
> > to the prayers of the 15th century's answer to a young Julia
> Roberts.
>
>
> Indeed, nature is nature, and sexual attraction is not necessarily
> based on looks.

No, but we shouldn't be slushy enough to assume that every arranged
marriage of the 15th century was also an instant love-match. Looks
aren't everything, but it is apparently the case that couples (in a
society where people are free to choose choice) tend to match each
other for looks, as if people's aspirations in that department
naturally tend to match the best available to them. So better-looking
males marry better-looking females. Or, as my mum's old auntie used
to say, "for every auld sock there's an auld shoe to fit it". Cecily
was very beautiful.
And I did add that York seems to have been a bit boring. Cecily and
York had had a late and slow start to their childbearing which may or
may not indicate a lack of personal commitment at that stage. I can't
prove that Cecily and York weren't madly in love with each other from
childhood, but you can't prove they were.

>
> For the record, since you told me in a previous post not to reject
> the Jones thesis out of hand, since it provides an explanation for
a
> number of curiosities, I have not rejected it out of hand. I have
> simply examined it carefully and found flaws.

Ann


I wouldn't call them flaws, in that for me there's nothing that
doesn't fit (as I say, unless someone can cite me some precedent, I
can't see the fact that Edward's bastardy wasn't publicised by his
parents as any kind of objection). I can see that the case is
unproven, but that's not the same thing.

Marie

PS. If I'm not on again before then, a very peaceful and happy New
Year to everyone on the forum.

Marie
>
> So what would you have done? I've never heard of a single instance
of
> a medieval lady admitting to having fathered her lord's heir in
> adultery.

I'm an old-fashioned girl, and believe that marriage vows are to be
taken seriously. Had I been in that position, I would have found it
quite impossible NOT to confess to my husband!

> It would not have helped York in any way to have had it become
public
> knowledge that, just while he was enjoying the most glorious
military
> triumph of his career, during which he was REALLY BRAVE, his wife
was
> busy making a cuckold of him with an archer; and that consequently
> his strapping, handsome son and heir, whom everybody admired, was
so
> tall & handsome and athletic preceisly because he was wasn't his!
> That just wasn't the way things worked amongst the aristocracy,
> either then or in Camilla Parker-Bowles' great-granny's day.

How well do we know what happened among the 15th century
aristocracy? Can we be certain that attitudes to adultery were the
same as in the fast set around Edward VII?


> Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show that
> much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no idea
of
> the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed Richard lay
2
> years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to fall
> about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely
believed
> to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was sniggering -
> hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the Duke's
face.
> Anyhow, as I said, even if he did suspect I don't think he would
have
> said anything. Put it this way, if I were writing a novel based on
a
> completely fictitious medieval duke & duchess whose heir was
> conceived in this way, I wouldn't have the Duke denounce his heir
as
> I personally wouldn't find that at all convincing - there is just
no
> precedent for it as far as I am aware.
>
>
Jones's footnotes are thin (I've just checked my copy and he doesn't
cite any specific authority at this point), and some of his
statements distinctly sweeping. Without looking at the 'medieval
writers' he relies on, we cannot be sure how reliable or typical
they were.

>
We shouldn't be slushy enough to assume that every arranged
> marriage of the 15th century was also an instant love-match. Looks
> aren't everything, but it is apparently the case that couples (in
a
> society where people are free to choose choice) tend to match each
> other for looks, as if people's aspirations in that department
> naturally tend to match the best available to them. So better-
looking
> males marry better-looking females. Or, as my mum's old auntie
used
> to say, "for every auld sock there's an auld shoe to fit it".
Cecily
> was very beautiful. And I did add that York seems to have been a
bit boring. Cecily and
> York had had a late and slow start to their childbearing which may
or
> may not indicate a lack of personal commitment at that stage. I
can't
> prove that Cecily and York weren't madly in love with each other
from
> childhood, but you can't prove they were.

No, I'm not suggesting that they were madly in love, and, as you
say, they had a slow start to their childbearing. However, a
miscarriage or two, or simply York's absence on campaign, could
account for that, and when they finally got going they produced
eleven (or ten even if you discount Edward) in 15 years, and you
can't get much quicker than that), so clearly Cecily cannot have
found York as unattractive as all that. And how can we be certain
that she was spectacularly beautiful? I am away from home, and so
without most of my books. Is the soubriquet 'the Rose of Raby'
contemporary, and which writers actually say that she was beautiful?
And where is the evidence that York was boring? All we know about
his character comes from his recorded actions, and AFAIK there is
nothing to indicate that he was boring. Proud certainly, quite
possibly impetuous, but that is really all we can say.
>
> >
> > For the record, since you told me in a previous post not to
reject
> > the Jones thesis out of hand, since it provides an explanation
for
> a
> > number of curiosities, I have not rejected it out of hand. I
have
> > simply examined it carefully and found flaws.
>

>
> I wouldn't call them flaws, in that for me there's nothing that
> doesn't fit (as I say, unless someone can cite me some precedent,
I
> can't see the fact that Edward's bastardy wasn't publicised by his
> parents as any kind of objection). I can see that the case is
> unproven, but that's not the same thing.
>
To my mind, all the points that Jones cites have alternative
explanations which are at least as likely. Now I suppose I shall
have to grit my teeth and sit through two hours of Tony Robinson on
Saturday evening to see whether there is anything I have missed. I
don't know about you, but I find him quite spectacularly irritating.

Happy New Year to all.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
> >
> > So what would you have done? I've never heard of a single
instance
> of
> > a medieval lady admitting to having fathered her lord's heir in
> > adultery.
>
> I'm an old-fashioned girl, and believe that marriage vows are to be
> taken seriously. Had I been in that position, I would have found it
> quite impossible NOT to confess to my husband!

Hang on, ann, I think you're taking me the wrong way! Our presonal
attitudes to marriage vows have nothing to do with this. I too am old-
fashioned, and for what it is worth have never once been unfaithful
in 26 years of marriage. But I put it to your that you might have
been rather individualistic and self-indulgent - modern rather than
medieval in fact - in confessing such a sin to a husband who was a
top English lord, particularly one of royal blood at this particular
period. Apart from the personal pain, York absolutely couldn't afford
the instability such an admission would bring to his position. He
himself could have done nothing but become the new secret bearer of
this heavy load.

>
> > It would not have helped York in any way to have had it become
> public
> > knowledge that, just while he was enjoying the most glorious
> military
> > triumph of his career, during which he was REALLY BRAVE, his wife
> was
> > busy making a cuckold of him with an archer; and that
consequently
> > his strapping, handsome son and heir, whom everybody admired, was
> so
> > tall & handsome and athletic preceisly because he was wasn't his!
> > That just wasn't the way things worked amongst the aristocracy,
> > either then or in Camilla Parker-Bowles' great-granny's day.
>
> How well do we know what happened among the 15th century
> aristocracy? Can we be certain that attitudes to adultery were the
> same as in the fast set around Edward VII?

No, but I suggest to you that such attitudes had been handed down
through the generations. Edward IV it seems did not have to recruit
his many mistresses from the desperate underclass. And since, human
nature being what it is, liaisons would have happened from time to
time, I say again that if we have no recorded instances of a nobleman
denying his wife's offspring, then it would appear that this was not
the way such things were handled. Jones does quote a medieval doctor
who tells that the procedure is: "you weigh the newborn, note its
vigour, wink, do not contest the mother's calculations of otherwise
cast doubt on her, but everyone knows the real story."
Also, if you want some (to a modern "old-fashioned girl") shocking
medieval attitudes to noble female adultery, then I could recommend
the Lais of Marie de France. Bear in mind that the whole medieval
courtly love tradition was in fact based around extra-marital affairs.

Also, I'm reminded of some 17th & 18th century registers of a parish
I've been studying. The vicar, where he evidently suspected this very
situation, would record the child not as, say, "Thomas of William
Lane", but as as "Thomas of wife of William Lane". But all these
children seem to have been brought up as legitimate with the surname
of their mother's husband.
>
>
> > Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show that
> > much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no idea
> of
> > the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed Richard
lay
> 2
> > years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to fall
> > about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely
> believed
> > to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was sniggering -

> > hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the Duke's
> face.
> > Anyhow, as I said, even if he did suspect I don't think he would
> have
> > said anything. Put it this way, if I were writing a novel based
on
> a
> > completely fictitious medieval duke & duchess whose heir was
> > conceived in this way, I wouldn't have the Duke denounce his heir
> as
> > I personally wouldn't find that at all convincing - there is just
> no
> > precedent for it as far as I am aware.
> >
> >
> Jones's footnotes are thin (I've just checked my copy and he
doesn't
> cite any specific authority at this point), and some of his
> statements distinctly sweeping. Without looking at the 'medieval
> writers' he relies on, we cannot be sure how reliable or typical
> they were.

I assume that this whole section is taken from the source given in
note 11, ie Rudolph M. Bell, "How to do it: Guides for Good Living
for Renaissance Italians" (Chicago 1999), pp63-82.
I know I myself have ceertainly read a contemporary reference to
pregnancy being 10 months, but I can't remember the source. And of
course there's always Rous' two years!

>
> >
> We shouldn't be slushy enough to assume that every arranged
> > marriage of the 15th century was also an instant love-match.
Looks
> > aren't everything, but it is apparently the case that couples (in
> a
> > society where people are free to choose choice) tend to match
each
> > other for looks, as if people's aspirations in that department
> > naturally tend to match the best available to them. So better-
> looking
> > males marry better-looking females. Or, as my mum's old auntie
> used
> > to say, "for every auld sock there's an auld shoe to fit it".
> Cecily
> > was very beautiful. And I did add that York seems to have been a
> bit boring. Cecily and
> > York had had a late and slow start to their childbearing which
may
> or
> > may not indicate a lack of personal commitment at that stage. I
> can't
> > prove that Cecily and York weren't madly in love with each other
> from
> > childhood, but you can't prove they were.
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that they were madly in love, and, as you
> say, they had a slow start to their childbearing. However, a
> miscarriage or two, or simply York's absence on campaign, could
> account for that, and when they finally got going they produced
> eleven (or ten even if you discount Edward) in 15 years, and you
> can't get much quicker than that), so clearly Cecily cannot have
> found York as unattractive as all that. And how can we be certain
> that she was spectacularly beautiful? I am away from home, and so
> without most of my books. Is the soubriquet 'the Rose of Raby'
> contemporary, and which writers actually say that she was
beautiful?
> And where is the evidence that York was boring?
All we know about
> his character comes from his recorded actions, and AFAIK there is
> nothing to indicate that he was boring. Proud certainly, quite
> possibly impetuous, but that is really all we can say.

Sorry, I spent years studying York at one time. Theere's quite enough
to get a view of him. I admire him tremendously as a very sincere
individual, but stuffy and lacking a certain flow. Anyway, that's the
view I formed.


> > >
> > > For the record, since you told me in a previous post not to
> reject
> > > the Jones thesis out of hand, since it provides an explanation
> for
> > a
> > > number of curiosities,

I have not rejected it out of hand. I
> have
> > > simply examined it carefully and found flaws.

Actually, I don't think I asked you not to reject it out of hand. I
think I said that it cannot be dismissed because it makes so much
better sense of the events of the period. I'd hardly call these
things "a number of curiosities" - they're the very core of the
politics of the period, and they don't otherwise make sense - not
Warwick, not Clarence, not the Woodvilles, not Richard, and not
Cecily.


> >
>
> >
> > I wouldn't call them flaws, in that for me there's nothing that
> > doesn't fit (as I say, unless someone can cite me some precedent,
> I
> > can't see the fact that Edward's bastardy wasn't publicised by
his
> > parents as any kind of objection). I can see that the case is
> > unproven, but that's not the same thing.
> >
> To my mind, all the points that Jones cites have alternative
> explanations which are at least as likely.

Well, if you want the bare statistical analysis on the probability of
Edward's having been conceived before or after the Duke's return, I
think I gave it earlier, and it is massively in favour of the former.
Try not to be swayed by the fact that you yourself were an eight-
month baby. Mature babies can be born at any time from 37 to 43
weeks' pregnancy, and as in every natural spread the vast majority of
events will take place near the mean. This does not mean that Edward
must have been illegitimate, but it means this is actually and
unarguably - from the bare point of view of dates - FAR more likely
than that he wasn't.

We should also try to avoid setting out by being being judgmental
regarding Cecily's possible behaviour, as this can only get in the
way of really looking at the way events fell out. (I wonder if some
of the ladies so horrified by the suggestion of Cecily's affair are
perhaps worried that they will gain a reputation for being pro-
adultery if they don't. I hope I'm not being unfair, but your comment
above makes me wonder.)


> have to grit my teeth and sit through two hours of Tony Robinson on
> Saturday evening to see whether there is anything I have missed. I
> don't know about you, but I find him quite spectacularly irritating.

I don't. I sometimes find Time Team a bit irritating, but that's a
different issue. I got many a well-earned rest out of my son's
addiction to Fat Tulip's Garden when he was little, for which I
remain grateful.

Looking forward to Saturday,

Marie

> >
> > I'm an old-fashioned girl, and believe that marriage vows are to
be
> > taken seriously. Had I been in that position, I would have found
it
> > quite impossible NOT to confess to my husband!
>
> Hang on, ann, I think you're taking me the wrong way! Our presonal
> attitudes to marriage vows have nothing to do with this. I too am
old-
> fashioned, and for what it is worth have never once been
unfaithful
> in 26 years of marriage. But I put it to your that you might have
> been rather individualistic and self-indulgent - modern rather
than
> medieval in fact - in confessing such a sin to a husband who was a
> top English lord, particularly one of royal blood at this
particular
> period. Apart from the personal pain, York absolutely couldn't
afford
> the instability such an admission would bring to his position. He
> himself could have done nothing but become the new secret bearer
of
> this heavy load.
>
Marie
In no sense was I seeking to suggest that you, personally, took
marriage vows lightly. Quite apart from anything else, I simply
don't know you well enough to form an opinion, still less express
one. In any event, apologies if I gave the wrong impression. What I
was trying to do was to go on from my point that 17 years is a long
time to keep quiet about an affair, especially one which produced
offspring. Are we to assume that York and Cecily never had rows, in
which things were said by one or the other in the heat of the
moment? And it would not take 17 years for Edward's lack of
resemblance to York would become apparent, so it would not be a
matter of York's risking being made to look a fool over a strapping,
athletic young adult whom everyone admired, but a five or six year
old, say.
>

Edward IV it seems did not have to recruit
> his many mistresses from the desperate underclass. And since,
human
> nature being what it is, liaisons would have happened from time to
> time, I say again that if we have no recorded instances of a
nobleman
> denying his wife's offspring, then it would appear that this was
not
> the way such things were handled.

This is true, and I have no obvious answer, but are you sure that in
the instances where it seems that husbands were prepared to accept
their wives' probable bastards we are always dealing with younger
offspring who were not particularly important from the point of view
of inheritance? To my mind keeping quiet about, say, a fourth or
fifth son who is unlikely to inherit anything much is a very
different matter from turning a blind eye about the heir. The
impression I have of the 18th and 19th centuries is that wives were
permitted to stray, but only after the heir and spare were safely
past infancy.

Jones does quote a medieval doctor
> who tells that the procedure is: "you weigh the newborn, note its
> vigour, wink, do not contest the mother's calculations of
otherwise
> cast doubt on her, but everyone knows the real story."
> Also, if you want some (to a modern "old-fashioned girl")
shocking
> medieval attitudes to noble female adultery, then I could
recommend
> the Lais of Marie de France. Bear in mind that the whole medieval
> courtly love tradition was in fact based around extra-marital
affairs.

This is also true, but an awful lot is about extra-marital affairs
and adorations that don't get very far, or at any rate end in
disaster. Rather like the way heroines of grand opera invariably
meet painful ends.
> > >
> >
> > > Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show
that
> > > much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no
idea
> > of
> > > the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed Richard
> lay
> > 2
> > > years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to
fall
> > > about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely
> > believed
> > > to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was
sniggering -
>
> > > hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the Duke's
> > face.

Why not to his face? Despite his eminent position, he may well have
had friends who pulled his leg, as many men do. And once again, over
17 years, there is plenty of time for coarse remarks among the
stablemen to reach his ears.
> > >
> > >
> > Jones's footnotes are thin (I've just checked my copy and he
> doesn't
> > cite any specific authority at this point), and some of his
> > statements distinctly sweeping. Without looking at the 'medieval
> > writers' he relies on, we cannot be sure how reliable or typical
> > they were.
>
> I assume that this whole section is taken from the source given in
> note 11, ie Rudolph M. Bell, "How to do it: Guides for Good Living
> for Renaissance Italians" (Chicago 1999), pp63-82.
>
I will have to get hold of Bell and see how convincing he is.
>
> > Sorry, I spent years studying York at one time. Theere's quite
enough
> to get a view of him. I admire him tremendously as a very sincere
> individual, but stuffy and lacking a certain flow. Anyway, that's
the
> view I formed.
>
Fair enough, but 11 (or 10) children in 15 years suggests a pretty
active sex life, especially as you said in an earlier post that
conception can only occur on a very few days a month. (However, my
mother once admitted to me that my brother can only have been
conceived at a time when it is supposed to be impossible.)

>
> Actually, I don't think I asked you not to reject it out of hand.
I
> think I said that it cannot be dismissed because it makes so much
> better sense of the events of the period. I'd hardly call these
> things "a number of curiosities" - they're the very core of the
> politics of the period, and they don't otherwise make sense - not
> Warwick, not Clarence, not the Woodvilles, not Richard, and not
> Cecily.
>
I would disagree once again here. Some elements of the politics of
the period are difficult to explain, but not impossible. As it
happens I have just been reading Norman Macdougall's biography of
James III of Scots. James's brother, Alexander, Duke of Albany,
behaved in a manner not at all dissimilar to Clarence, and we can
find at least one Warwick manqué among the Scottish nobility, but
AFAIK there was no suggestion that James was not the son of James
II, and Macdougall concludes that he was not nearly as ineffectual a
ruler as the traditional view suggests. Jealous younger brothers and
over-mighty subjects were a feature of the times.
> > >
> >
> > >
> Well, if you want the bare statistical analysis on the probability
of
> Edward's having been conceived before or after the Duke's return,
I
> think I gave it earlier, and it is massively in favour of the
former.
> Try not to be swayed by the fact that you yourself were an eight-
> month baby. Mature babies can be born at any time from 37 to 43
> weeks' pregnancy, and as in every natural spread the vast majority
of
> events will take place near the mean. This does not mean that
Edward
> must have been illegitimate, but it means this is actually and
> unarguably - from the bare point of view of dates - FAR more
likely
> than that he wasn't.
>
There must be a fair number of eight-month babies around. Again, I
don't know the statistics, but as it happens I've just been thumbing
through a biography of the German general Heinz Guderian which my
father got for Christmas. Guderian's parents married in October
1887, and he was born on 17th June 1887. Since his parents both came
from Prussian Junker families, I think it unlikely that they had
much opportunity to warm the bell before the wedding.


> We should also try to avoid setting out by being being judgmental
> regarding Cecily's possible behaviour, as this can only get in the
> way of really looking at the way events fell out. (I wonder if
some
> of the ladies so horrified by the suggestion of Cecily's affair
are
> perhaps worried that they will gain a reputation for being pro-
> adultery if they don't. I hope I'm not being unfair, but your
comment
> above makes me wonder.)
>
No, I'm not concerned about appearances here. Those who know me well
would confirm that I am quite prepared to stick my neck out and
propound unfashionable views. I say unfashionable in this context as
relaxed views about adultery seem to be the norm nowadays.

I sometimes find Time Team a bit irritating, but that's a
> different issue. I got many a well-earned rest out of my son's
> addiction to Fat Tulip's Garden when he was little, for which I
> remain grateful.
>
Here we have to differ once again.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I'm an old-fashioned girl, and believe that marriage vows are
to
> be
> > > taken seriously. Had I been in that position, I would have
found
> it
> > > quite impossible NOT to confess to my husband!
> >
> > Hang on, ann, I think you're taking me the wrong way! Our
presonal
> > attitudes to marriage vows have nothing to do with this. I too am
> old-
> > fashioned, and for what it is worth have never once been
> unfaithful
> > in 26 years of marriage. But I put it to your that you might have
> > been rather individualistic and self-indulgent - modern rather
> than
> > medieval in fact - in confessing such a sin to a husband who was
a
> > top English lord, particularly one of royal blood at this
> particular
> > period. Apart from the personal pain, York absolutely couldn't
> afford
> > the instability such an admission would bring to his position. He
> > himself could have done nothing but become the new secret bearer
> of
> > this heavy load.
> >
> Marie
> In no sense was I seeking to suggest that you, personally, took
> marriage vows lightly. Quite apart from anything else, I simply
> don't know you well enough to form an opinion, still less express
> one. In any event, apologies if I gave the wrong impression. What I
> was trying to do was to go on from my point that 17 years is a long
> time to keep quiet about an affair, especially one which produced
> offspring. Are we to assume that York and Cecily never had rows, in
> which things were said by one or the other in the heat of the
> moment? And it would not take 17 years for Edward's lack of
> resemblance to York would become apparent, so it would not be a
> matter of York's risking being made to look a fool over a
strapping,
> athletic young adult whom everyone admired, but a five or six year
> old, say.

17 years is a long time. However, as I tried to argue before, I don't
believe that York would have been able to denounce Edward anyway, so
whether Cecily told him or not is immaterial.


> >
>
> Edward IV it seems did not have to recruit
> > his many mistresses from the desperate underclass. And since,
> human
> > nature being what it is, liaisons would have happened from time
to
> > time, I say again that if we have no recorded instances of a
> nobleman
> > denying his wife's offspring, then it would appear that this was
> not
> > the way such things were handled.
>
> This is true, and I have no obvious answer, but are you sure that
in
> the instances where it seems that husbands were prepared to accept
> their wives' probable bastards we are always dealing with younger
> offspring who were not particularly important from the point of
view
> of inheritance? To my mind keeping quiet about, say, a fourth or
> fifth son who is unlikely to inherit anything much is a very
> different matter from turning a blind eye about the heir. The
> impression I have of the 18th and 19th centuries is that wives were
> permitted to stray, but only after the heir and spare were safely
> past infancy.

I don't know of any instances of medieval noblemen keeping quiet
about their wives' probably bastards - by definition! I simply don't
know of ANY instances where they renounced them. So arew you saying
there simply were no cases where the child in question was, or later
became, the heir?


>
> Jones does quote a medieval doctor
> > who tells that the procedure is: "you weigh the newborn, note its
> > vigour, wink, do not contest the mother's calculations of
> otherwise
> > cast doubt on her, but everyone knows the real story."
> > Also, if you want some (to a modern "old-fashioned girl")
> shocking
> > medieval attitudes to noble female adultery, then I could
> recommend
> > the Lais of Marie de France. Bear in mind that the whole medieval
> > courtly love tradition was in fact based around extra-marital
> affairs.
>
> This is also true, but an awful lot is about extra-marital affairs
> and adorations that don't get very far, or at any rate end in
> disaster. Rather like the way heroines of grand opera invariably
> meet painful ends.

Tristan and Isolde, and Lancelot and Guinevere, to name the two
greatest pairs of lovers of medieval tale, were both involved with
each other for a very long time. Indeed, oOne could argue that the
moral of the Arthurian legends is that Arthur allowed his personal
jealousy of Lancelot to interfere with his rule. And don't most
traditional love stories end in disaster anyway?


> > > >
> > >
> > > > Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show
> that
> > > > much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no
> idea
> > > of
> > > > the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed
Richard
> > lay
> > > 2
> > > > years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to
> fall
> > > > about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely
> > > believed
> > > > to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was
> sniggering -
> >
> > > > hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the
Duke's
> > > face.
>
> Why not to his face? Despite his eminent position, he may well have
> had friends who pulled his leg, as many men do. And once again,
over
> 17 years, there is plenty of time for coarse remarks among the
> stablemen to reach his ears.

He may well have heard - Jones does in fact argue that he suspected
Edward wasn't his. Hence the lowkey baptism, and York's breaking
company with Edward after Ludlow, keeping Rutland with him. But I
don;t think any friend would rib a man about a thing like that unless
he were sure they both knew there was nothing in it. Traditional
cultures (and I remember rural Ireland many years ago) work like
that - people keep up a front, and gossip goes on behind their backs -
the "backbiting" that medieval moralists were so exorcised about.
Ideas of right and wrong were more concerned with holding society
together than with personal angst.


> > > >
> > > >
> > > Jones's footnotes are thin (I've just checked my copy and he
> > doesn't
> > > cite any specific authority at this point), and some of his
> > > statements distinctly sweeping. Without looking at
the 'medieval
> > > writers' he relies on, we cannot be sure how reliable or
typical
> > > they were.
> >
> > I assume that this whole section is taken from the source given
in
> > note 11, ie Rudolph M. Bell, "How to do it: Guides for Good
Living
> > for Renaissance Italians" (Chicago 1999), pp63-82.
> >
> I will have to get hold of Bell and see how convincing he is.
> >
> > > Sorry, I spent years studying York at one time. Theere's quite
> enough
> > to get a view of him. I admire him tremendously as a very sincere
> > individual, but stuffy and lacking a certain flow. Anyway, that's
> the
> > view I formed.
> >
> Fair enough, but 11 (or 10) children in 15 years suggests a pretty
> active sex life, especially as you said in an earlier post that
> conception can only occur on a very few days a month. (However, my
> mother once admitted to me that my brother can only have been
> conceived at a time when it is supposed to be impossible.)

Yes, but everything's cabaple of more than one interpretation. No
children at all until Cecily was 23 - more than a couple of
miscarriages required there, I feel. Then a girl. Then 18 months and
a boy. Then 15 1/2 months and Edward, possibly not the Duke's,
however.
Then, suddenly, for a few years the pregnancies start falling over
each other. 12 1/2 months later, Edmund. Then just over 11 months.
Just over 12 months. 14 months. . . And as we know, Cecily followed
her husband everywhere, even making sea voyages heavily pregnant. Is
it possible that York was frightened to let her out of her sight, or
un-pregnant??

>
> >
> > Actually, I don't think I asked you not to reject it out of hand.
> I
> > think I said that it cannot be dismissed because it makes so much
> > better sense of the events of the period. I'd hardly call these
> > things "a number of curiosities" - they're the very core of the
> > politics of the period, and they don't otherwise make sense - not
> > Warwick, not Clarence, not the Woodvilles, not Richard, and not
> > Cecily.
> >
> I would disagree once again here. Some elements of the politics of
> the period are difficult to explain, but not impossible. As it
> happens I have just been reading Norman Macdougall's biography of
> James III of Scots. James's brother, Alexander, Duke of Albany,
> behaved in a manner not at all dissimilar to Clarence, and we can
> find at least one Warwick manqué among the Scottish nobility, but
> AFAIK there was no suggestion that James was not the son of James
> II, and Macdougall concludes that he was not nearly as ineffectual
a
> ruler as the traditional view suggests. Jealous younger brothers
and
> over-mighty subjects were a feature of the times.

Okay. However, I've not read this one. I had the view that James III
was a useless king, and everybody found him hard to live with. I'd
take some convincing this wasn't so, thinking of Douglas, and the
fact that his own nobles had him in prison in 1483, and his final
end. What about Warwick? What about 1483?


> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > Well, if you want the bare statistical analysis on the
probability
> of
> > Edward's having been conceived before or after the Duke's return,
> I
> > think I gave it earlier, and it is massively in favour of the
> former.
> > Try not to be swayed by the fact that you yourself were an eight-
> > month baby. Mature babies can be born at any time from 37 to 43
> > weeks' pregnancy, and as in every natural spread the vast
majority
> of
> > events will take place near the mean. This does not mean that
> Edward
> > must have been illegitimate, but it means this is actually and
> > unarguably - from the bare point of view of dates - FAR more
> likely
> > than that he wasn't.
> >
> There must be a fair number of eight-month babies around. Again, I
> don't know the statistics, but as it happens I've just been
thumbing
> through a biography of the German general Heinz Guderian which my
> father got for Christmas. Guderian's parents married in October
> 1887, and he was born on 17th June 1887. Since his parents both
came
> from Prussian Junker families, I think it unlikely that they had
> much opportunity to warm the bell before the wedding.

Of course there are a fair few. There are also a fair few "overdue",
including myself, all my siblings and both my children. The fact is
you were talking about equal likelihoods, and as I understand it the
likelihood on pure statistics is that Edward was conceived before
York's return. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could look up
some pregnancy books.

>
>
> > We should also try to avoid setting out by being being judgmental
> > regarding Cecily's possible behaviour, as this can only get in
the
> > way of really looking at the way events fell out. (I wonder if
> some
> > of the ladies so horrified by the suggestion of Cecily's affair
> are
> > perhaps worried that they will gain a reputation for being pro-
> > adultery if they don't. I hope I'm not being unfair, but your
> comment
> > above makes me wonder.)
> >
> No, I'm not concerned about appearances here. Those who know me
well
> would confirm that I am quite prepared to stick my neck out and
> propound unfashionable views. I say unfashionable in this context
as
> relaxed views about adultery seem to be the norm nowadays.

Not my experience. It seems to me that a new morality has emerged in
which serial relationships are fine, sex outside marriage is fine,
but "cheating on your partner" is absolutely out. Much more honest -
but not a possible route for the 15th century nobility.

>
> I sometimes find Time Team a bit irritating, but that's a
> > different issue. I got many a well-earned rest out of my son's
> > addiction to Fat Tulip's Garden when he was little, for which I
> > remain grateful.
> >
> Here we have to differ once again.
>
> Ann

Didn't More accuse Richard of having claimed that Edward was
illegitimate after the latter died?

--Bob Waters


mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'm an old-fashioned girl, and believe that marriage vows are
> to
> > be
> > > > taken seriously. Had I been in that position, I would have
> found
> > it
> > > > quite impossible NOT to confess to my husband!
> > >
> > > Hang on, ann, I think you're taking me the wrong way! Our
> presonal
> > > attitudes to marriage vows have nothing to do with this. I too am
> > old-
> > > fashioned, and for what it is worth have never once been
> > unfaithful
> > > in 26 years of marriage. But I put it to your that you might have
> > > been rather individualistic and self-indulgent - modern rather
> > than
> > > medieval in fact - in confessing such a sin to a husband who was
> a
> > > top English lord, particularly one of royal blood at this
> > particular
> > > period. Apart from the personal pain, York absolutely couldn't
> > afford
> > > the instability such an admission would bring to his position. He
> > > himself could have done nothing but become the new secret bearer
> > of
> > > this heavy load.
> > >
> > Marie
> > In no sense was I seeking to suggest that you, personally, took
> > marriage vows lightly. Quite apart from anything else, I simply
> > don't know you well enough to form an opinion, still less express
> > one. In any event, apologies if I gave the wrong impression. What I
> > was trying to do was to go on from my point that 17 years is a long
> > time to keep quiet about an affair, especially one which produced
> > offspring. Are we to assume that York and Cecily never had rows, in
> > which things were said by one or the other in the heat of the
> > moment? And it would not take 17 years for Edward's lack of
> > resemblance to York would become apparent, so it would not be a
> > matter of York's risking being made to look a fool over a
> strapping,
> > athletic young adult whom everyone admired, but a five or six year
> > old, say.
>
> 17 years is a long time. However, as I tried to argue before, I don't
> believe that York would have been able to denounce Edward anyway, so
> whether Cecily told him or not is immaterial.
>
>
> > >
> >
> > Edward IV it seems did not have to recruit
> > > his many mistresses from the desperate underclass. And since,
> > human
> > > nature being what it is, liaisons would have happened from time
> to
> > > time, I say again that if we have no recorded instances of a
> > nobleman
> > > denying his wife's offspring, then it would appear that this was
> > not
> > > the way such things were handled.
> >
> > This is true, and I have no obvious answer, but are you sure that
> in
> > the instances where it seems that husbands were prepared to accept
> > their wives' probable bastards we are always dealing with younger
> > offspring who were not particularly important from the point of
> view
> > of inheritance? To my mind keeping quiet about, say, a fourth or
> > fifth son who is unlikely to inherit anything much is a very
> > different matter from turning a blind eye about the heir. The
> > impression I have of the 18th and 19th centuries is that wives were
> > permitted to stray, but only after the heir and spare were safely
> > past infancy.
>
> I don't know of any instances of medieval noblemen keeping quiet
> about their wives' probably bastards - by definition! I simply don't
> know of ANY instances where they renounced them. So arew you saying
> there simply were no cases where the child in question was, or later
> became, the heir?
>
>
> >
> > Jones does quote a medieval doctor
> > > who tells that the procedure is: "you weigh the newborn, note its
> > > vigour, wink, do not contest the mother's calculations of
> > otherwise
> > > cast doubt on her, but everyone knows the real story."
> > > Also, if you want some (to a modern "old-fashioned girl")
> > shocking
> > > medieval attitudes to noble female adultery, then I could
> > recommend
> > > the Lais of Marie de France. Bear in mind that the whole medieval
> > > courtly love tradition was in fact based around extra-marital
> > affairs.
> >
> > This is also true, but an awful lot is about extra-marital affairs
> > and adorations that don't get very far, or at any rate end in
> > disaster. Rather like the way heroines of grand opera invariably
> > meet painful ends.
>
> Tristan and Isolde, and Lancelot and Guinevere, to name the two
> greatest pairs of lovers of medieval tale, were both involved with
> each other for a very long time. Indeed, oOne could argue that the
> moral of the Arthurian legends is that Arthur allowed his personal
> jealousy of Lancelot to interfere with his rule. And don't most
> traditional love stories end in disaster anyway?
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Jones actually quotes some medieval writers on this to show
> > that
> > > > > much of the male population, at any rate, had absolutely no
> > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > the limits of pregnancy (and bear in mind Rous claimed
> Richard
> > > lay
> > > > 2
> > > > > years in his mother's womb and didn't expect his readers to
> > fall
> > > > > about laughing). And it is true that boys were absolutely
> > > > believed
> > > > > to mature more quickly than girls. No doubt there was
> > sniggering -
> > >
> > > > > hence the later jibes on the continent - but not to the
> Duke's
> > > > face.
> >
> > Why not to his face? Despite his eminent position, he may well have
> > had friends who pulled his leg, as many men do. And once again,
> over
> > 17 years, there is plenty of time for coarse remarks among the
> > stablemen to reach his ears.
>
> He may well have heard - Jones does in fact argue that he suspected
> Edward wasn't his. Hence the lowkey baptism, and York's breaking
> company with Edward after Ludlow, keeping Rutland with him. But I
> don;t think any friend would rib a man about a thing like that unless
> he were sure they both knew there was nothing in it. Traditional
> cultures (and I remember rural Ireland many years ago) work like
> that - people keep up a front, and gossip goes on behind their backs -
> the "backbiting" that medieval moralists were so exorcised about.
> Ideas of right and wrong were more concerned with holding society
> together than with personal angst.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Jones's footnotes are thin (I've just checked my copy and he
> > > doesn't
> > > > cite any specific authority at this point), and some of his
> > > > statements distinctly sweeping. Without looking at
> the 'medieval
> > > > writers' he relies on, we cannot be sure how reliable or
> typical
> > > > they were.
> > >
> > > I assume that this whole section is taken from the source given
> in
> > > note 11, ie Rudolph M. Bell, "How to do it: Guides for Good
> Living
> > > for Renaissance Italians" (Chicago 1999), pp63-82.
> > >
> > I will have to get hold of Bell and see how convincing he is.
> > >
> > > > Sorry, I spent years studying York at one time. Theere's quite
> > enough
> > > to get a view of him. I admire him tremendously as a very sincere
> > > individual, but stuffy and lacking a certain flow. Anyway, that's
> > the
> > > view I formed.
> > >
> > Fair enough, but 11 (or 10) children in 15 years suggests a pretty
> > active sex life, especially as you said in an earlier post that
> > conception can only occur on a very few days a month. (However, my
> > mother once admitted to me that my brother can only have been
> > conceived at a time when it is supposed to be impossible.)
>
> Yes, but everything's cabaple of more than one interpretation. No
> children at all until Cecily was 23 - more than a couple of
> miscarriages required there, I feel. Then a girl. Then 18 months and
> a boy. Then 15 1/2 months and Edward, possibly not the Duke's,
> however.
> Then, suddenly, for a few years the pregnancies start falling over
> each other. 12 1/2 months later, Edmund. Then just over 11 months.
> Just over 12 months. 14 months. . . And as we know, Cecily followed
> her husband everywhere, even making sea voyages heavily pregnant. Is
> it possible that York was frightened to let her out of her sight, or
> un-pregnant??
>
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't think I asked you not to reject it out of hand.
> > I
> > > think I said that it cannot be dismissed because it makes so much
> > > better sense of the events of the period. I'd hardly call these
> > > things "a number of curiosities" - they're the very core of the
> > > politics of the period, and they don't otherwise make sense - not
> > > Warwick, not Clarence, not the Woodvilles, not Richard, and not
> > > Cecily.
> > >
> > I would disagree once again here. Some elements of the politics of
> > the period are difficult to explain, but not impossible. As it
> > happens I have just been reading Norman Macdougall's biography of
> > James III of Scots. James's brother, Alexander, Duke of Albany,
> > behaved in a manner not at all dissimilar to Clarence, and we can
> > find at least one Warwick manqué among the Scottish nobility, but
> > AFAIK there was no suggestion that James was not the son of James
> > II, and Macdougall concludes that he was not nearly as ineffectual
> a
> > ruler as the traditional view suggests. Jealous younger brothers
> and
> > over-mighty subjects were a feature of the times.
>
> Okay. However, I've not read this one. I had the view that James III
> was a useless king, and everybody found him hard to live with. I'd
> take some convincing this wasn't so, thinking of Douglas, and the
> fact that his own nobles had him in prison in 1483, and his final
> end. What about Warwick? What about 1483?
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > Well, if you want the bare statistical analysis on the
> probability
> > of
> > > Edward's having been conceived before or after the Duke's return,
> > I
> > > think I gave it earlier, and it is massively in favour of the
> > former.
> > > Try not to be swayed by the fact that you yourself were an eight-
> > > month baby. Mature babies can be born at any time from 37 to 43
> > > weeks' pregnancy, and as in every natural spread the vast
> majority
> > of
> > > events will take place near the mean. This does not mean that
> > Edward
> > > must have been illegitimate, but it means this is actually and
> > > unarguably - from the bare point of view of dates - FAR more
> > likely
> > > than that he wasn't.
> > >
> > There must be a fair number of eight-month babies around. Again, I
> > don't know the statistics, but as it happens I've just been
> thumbing
> > through a biography of the German general Heinz Guderian which my
> > father got for Christmas. Guderian's parents married in October
> > 1887, and he was born on 17th June 1887. Since his parents both
> came
> > from Prussian Junker families, I think it unlikely that they had
> > much opportunity to warm the bell before the wedding.
>
> Of course there are a fair few. There are also a fair few "overdue",
> including myself, all my siblings and both my children. The fact is
> you were talking about equal likelihoods, and as I understand it the
> likelihood on pure statistics is that Edward was conceived before
> York's return. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could look up
> some pregnancy books.
>
> >
> >
> > > We should also try to avoid setting out by being being judgmental
> > > regarding Cecily's possible behaviour, as this can only get in
> the
> > > way of really looking at the way events fell out. (I wonder if
> > some
> > > of the ladies so horrified by the suggestion of Cecily's affair
> > are
> > > perhaps worried that they will gain a reputation for being pro-
> > > adultery if they don't. I hope I'm not being unfair, but your
> > comment
> > > above makes me wonder.)
> > >
> > No, I'm not concerned about appearances here. Those who know me
> well
> > would confirm that I am quite prepared to stick my neck out and
> > propound unfashionable views. I say unfashionable in this context
> as
> > relaxed views about adultery seem to be the norm nowadays.
>
> Not my experience. It seems to me that a new morality has emerged in
> which serial relationships are fine, sex outside marriage is fine,
> but "cheating on your partner" is absolutely out. Much more honest -
> but not a possible route for the 15th century nobility.
>
> >
> > I sometimes find Time Team a bit irritating, but that's a
> > > different issue. I got many a well-earned rest out of my son's
> > > addiction to Fat Tulip's Garden when he was little, for which I
> > > remain grateful.
> > >
> > Here we have to differ once again.
> >
> > Ann

>
> I don't know of any instances of medieval noblemen keeping quiet
> about their wives' probably bastards - by definition! I simply
don't
> know of ANY instances where they renounced them. So arew you
saying
> there simply were no cases where the child in question was, or
later
> became, the heir?
>
Once again, the answer is that we just don't know. There are,
however, some instances where noblemen argued that their marriages
were void so as to get an annulment which had the effect of
bastardising a healthy son. One was Richard FitzAlan, Earl of
Arundel, in the 14th century. The son in question was 17 and, since
he was a knight and later fathered three children, presumably
healthy; so, one would have thought, a much safer bet as an heir
than a son he might have by the second wife he was obviously keen to
marry. The other is Elizabeth I's favourite, Robert Dudley, Earl of
Leicester, who claimed that his second marriage was irregular and
thereby bastardised a son who was somewhat younger than Edmund
FitzAlan, but again became a healthy adult (Leicester's son by his
third wife died aged about four).

>
> Tristan and Isolde, and Lancelot and Guinevere, to name the two
> greatest pairs of lovers of medieval tale, were both involved with
> each other for a very long time. Indeed, oOne could argue that
the
> moral of the Arthurian legends is that Arthur allowed his personal
> jealousy of Lancelot to interfere with his rule. And don't most
> traditional love stories end in disaster anyway?
>

They do, but again the moral of these tales is all a matter of
interpretation.
>
> > > > >
> > > >
>
> He may well have heard - Jones does in fact argue that he
suspected
> Edward wasn't his. Hence the lowkey baptism, and York's breaking
> company with Edward after Ludlow, keeping Rutland with him. But I
> don;t think any friend would rib a man about a thing like that
unless
> he were sure they both knew there was nothing in it. Traditional
> cultures (and I remember rural Ireland many years ago) work like
> that - people keep up a front, and gossip goes on behind their
backs -
> the "backbiting" that medieval moralists were so exorcised about.
> Ideas of right and wrong were more concerned with holding society
> together than with personal angst.
>
> > >
> >
> Yes, but everything's cabaple of more than one interpretation. No
> children at all until Cecily was 23 - more than a couple of
> miscarriages required there, I feel. Then a girl. Then 18 months
and
> a boy. Then 15 1/2 months and Edward, possibly not the Duke's,
> however.
> Then, suddenly, for a few years the pregnancies start falling over
> each other. 12 1/2 months later, Edmund. Then just over 11 months.
> Just over 12 months. 14 months. . .


And as we know, Cecily followed
> her husband everywhere, even making sea voyages heavily pregnant.
Is
> it possible that York was frightened to let her out of her sight,
or
> un-pregnant??

That had occurred to me, I admit.
>
> > Okay. However, I've not read this one. I had the view that James
III
> was a useless king, and everybody found him hard to live with. I'd
> take some convincing this wasn't so, thinking of Douglas, and the
> fact that his own nobles had him in prison in 1483, and his final
> end. What about Warwick? What about 1483?
>
To my mind Warwick was motivated in the main by fury that he was
being increasingly sidelined by the man he regarded as his
protegé.
Bear in mind that he was still relatively young - he was only 42
when he was killed - and power was his drug, hence his desparate
attempts to regain it.
>
>
> Of course there are a fair few eight month babies. There are also
a fair few "overdue",
> including myself, all my siblings and both my children. The fact
is
> you were talking about equal likelihoods, and as I understand it
the
> likelihood on pure statistics is that Edward was conceived before
> York's return. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could look up
> some pregnancy books.
>
> >
I have in fact done a little looking up. There is indeed a
normal 'spread', and anything from about two weeks before the due
date to two weeks after is entirely typical and nothing to get
excited about. The further away from the due date you get the
numbers fall off, but three or four weeks is nothing unusual and not
incompatible with a healthy child. By my calculation 20th August
1441 to 28th April 1442 is 35 weeks and 6 days. Further, it is my
understanding that 'early' or 'late' tends to run in families; my
brother and I were both early, to the tune of about three weeks,
your family were all late. We don't know about Cecily's Nevill's
children other than Edward. It's possible that most if not all of
them were on the early side; perhaps he was an extreme case, perhaps
not.
>

What we have here is a situation where all the factors Jones quotes
in favour of his theory have cogent alternative explanations, and I
suppose what I'm ultimately trying to say is that the Jones
hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - and we should not elevate
it to historical 'fact' without considering the alternatives very
carefully. When I've started to look at the historical evidence for
the sacred cows of Ricardian fiction - the obvious example is that
Richard and Anne Neville were childhood sweethearts and madly in
love - I've found very little to support it. For what it's worth my
theory is that Jones, who is apparently the father of a very
premature child, has it fixed in his head that no child born early
can possibly be robust, and, starting from that premise, looked
round for evidence that Edward IV was not York's son.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know of any instances of medieval noblemen keeping quiet
> > about their wives' probably bastards - by definition! I simply
> don't
> > know of ANY instances where they renounced them. So arew you
> saying
> > there simply were no cases where the child in question was, or
> later
> > became, the heir?
> >
> Once again, the answer is that we just don't know. There are,
> however, some instances where noblemen argued that their marriages
> were void so as to get an annulment which had the effect of
> bastardising a healthy son. One was Richard FitzAlan, Earl of
> Arundel, in the 14th century. The son in question was 17 and, since
> he was a knight and later fathered three children, presumably
> healthy; so, one would have thought, a much safer bet as an heir
> than a son he might have by the second wife he was obviously keen
to
> marry. The other is Elizabeth I's favourite, Robert Dudley, Earl of
> Leicester, who claimed that his second marriage was irregular and
> thereby bastardised a son who was somewhat younger than Edmund
> FitzAlan, but again became a healthy adult (Leicester's son by his
> third wife died aged about four).
>
> >
> > Tristan and Isolde, and Lancelot and Guinevere, to name the two
> > greatest pairs of lovers of medieval tale, were both involved
with
> > each other for a very long time. Indeed, oOne could argue that
> the
> > moral of the Arthurian legends is that Arthur allowed his
personal
> > jealousy of Lancelot to interfere with his rule. And don't most
> > traditional love stories end in disaster anyway?
> >
>
> They do, but again the moral of these tales is all a matter of
> interpretation.
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > He may well have heard - Jones does in fact argue that he
> suspected
> > Edward wasn't his. Hence the lowkey baptism, and York's breaking
> > company with Edward after Ludlow, keeping Rutland with him. But I
> > don;t think any friend would rib a man about a thing like that
> unless
> > he were sure they both knew there was nothing in it. Traditional
> > cultures (and I remember rural Ireland many years ago) work like
> > that - people keep up a front, and gossip goes on behind their
> backs -
> > the "backbiting" that medieval moralists were so exorcised
about.
> > Ideas of right and wrong were more concerned with holding society
> > together than with personal angst.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > Yes, but everything's cabaple of more than one interpretation. No
> > children at all until Cecily was 23 - more than a couple of
> > miscarriages required there, I feel. Then a girl. Then 18 months
> and
> > a boy. Then 15 1/2 months and Edward, possibly not the Duke's,
> > however.
> > Then, suddenly, for a few years the pregnancies start falling
over
> > each other. 12 1/2 months later, Edmund. Then just over 11
months.
> > Just over 12 months. 14 months. . .
>
>
> And as we know, Cecily followed
> > her husband everywhere, even making sea voyages heavily pregnant.
> Is
> > it possible that York was frightened to let her out of her sight,
> or
> > un-pregnant??
>
> That had occurred to me, I admit.
> >
> > > Okay. However, I've not read this one. I had the view that
James
> III
> > was a useless king, and everybody found him hard to live with.
I'd
> > take some convincing this wasn't so, thinking of Douglas, and the
> > fact that his own nobles had him in prison in 1483, and his final
> > end. What about Warwick? What about 1483?
> >
> To my mind Warwick was motivated in the main by fury that he was
> being increasingly sidelined by the man he regarded as his
> protegé.
> Bear in mind that he was still relatively young - he was only 42
> when he was killed - and power was his drug, hence his desparate
> attempts to regain it.
> >
> >
> > Of course there are a fair few eight month babies. There are also
> a fair few "overdue",
> > including myself, all my siblings and both my children. The fact
> is
> > you were talking about equal likelihoods, and as I understand it
> the
> > likelihood on pure statistics is that Edward was conceived before
> > York's return. If you don't believe me, perhaps you could look up
> > some pregnancy books.
> >
> > >
> I have in fact done a little looking up. There is indeed a
> normal 'spread', and anything from about two weeks before the due
> date to two weeks after is entirely typical and nothing to get
> excited about. The further away from the due date you get the
> numbers fall off, but three or four weeks is nothing unusual and
not
> incompatible with a healthy child. By my calculation 20th August
> 1441 to 28th April 1442 is 35 weeks and 6 days.

Correct. I think I may have miscounted. This is from conception, to
be clear, whereas weeks of pregnancy are usually quoted from first
day of last period. This gives 40 weeks full-term pregnancy based on
assumption that ovulation occurred two weeks after period (actual
gestation period is 38 weeks, plus or minus). S
However, as I said before, my understanding of Jones' new source (and
I admit he is vague about it in his book) is that it shows York to
have been in Pontoise up to 20th August - not to have got back to
Rouen on 20th August. Which is why, as I said, I based my
calculations on earliest possible date of conception of 24th August.
Depending on how quickly York made his way back to Rouen, it could of
course have been even later. So AT BEST Edward was born at 37 weeks 3
days prgnancy - ie almost 3 weeks early.

Further, it is my
> understanding that 'early' or 'late' tends to run in families; my
> brother and I were both early, to the tune of about three weeks,
> your family were all late. We don't know about Cecily's Nevill's
> children other than Edward. It's possible that most if not all of
> them were on the early side; perhaps he was an extreme case,
perhaps
> not.

24 August gives 35 weeks 3 days gestation, ie 17 days off full term.
However, this is the ABSOLUTE MOST MATURE Edward could have been, and
it relies on the double chance of York having made his way back to
Rouen fairly directly, and for Cecily to have been ovulating just as
he returned. If he were conceived much more than a week later, and it
would become increasingly unlikely that he was born
Certainly Cecily may have tended to produce early, but the shortest
ever gap between her children was 11 calendar months and 5 days
(between Edmund & Elizabeth). I seem to recall reading that, if you
don't breastfeed, then the first ovulation after the birth might be
four weeks later, though is not predictable. So Cecily's history
doesn't exactly argue in favour of her having had short pregnancies.

To go back to your earlier message regarding the one window a month,
this is of course correct except where the woman has more than one
ovulation in the same month. This not the norm, and there is a
genetic predisposition here, and this is of course is how fraternal
twins are conveived. Even women who have this happen almost certainly
don't have double ovulations routinely - typically it's more common
for a slightly older woman. Since Cecily had twelve pregnancies, all
single, I have ruled this possibility out.
Your mother's experience of conceiving when it should have been
impossible is of course because no time is impossible - it just
depends when she happened to have ovulated that cycle. Ovulation
occurs two weeks before the next period, NOT two weeks after the
last, so in a cycle which is not 28 days long ovulation will take
place accordingly earlier or later. Which is, of course, exactly why
the "safe period" is not safe at all. It doesn't mean your mother was
fertile for an abnormally long period in the one month. (Also, bear
in mind the sperm can survive for up to 3 days in utero waiting for
an egg to turn up. The egg, on the other hand, only survives for a
day, or two at most.)
I have never denied the possibility that Edward could have been
conceived on or shortly after 24th August, but I have argued that
statistically this is much the less likely option. We now seem to be
in agreement on this.


> >
>
> What we have here is a situation where all the factors Jones quotes
> in favour of his theory have cogent alternative explanations, and I
> suppose what I'm ultimately trying to say is that the Jones
> hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - and we should not elevate
> it to historical 'fact' without considering the alternatives very
> carefully.

Ann, that's all I ever asked. I said it was unproven but not
dismissable, but you didn't seem to accept that at the time.

When I've started to look at the historical evidence for
> the sacred cows of Ricardian fiction - the obvious example is that
> Richard and Anne Neville were childhood sweethearts and madly in
> love - I've found very little to support it. For what it's worth my
> theory is that Jones, who is apparently the father of a very
> premature child, has it fixed in his head that no child born early
> can possibly be robust, and, starting from that premise, looked
> round for evidence that Edward IV was not York's son.

Is Jones the father of a very premature child? I was not aware of
this. I know he has a young family. Nor did he look round for
evidence. He happens to have discovered a French document showing the
York was at Pontoise far longer than previously believed, realised
this extra period coincided with the likeliest time for Edward to
have been conceived, and immediately saw that the repeated
contemporary assertions of his having been conceived in adultery
might actually have some foundation. Then he ran the theory through
to see if it made sense in terms of family actions, and found it
absolutely did.
I would agree with you that most of the sacred cows of Ricardian
fiction have no basis, but this is not one of those.


>
> Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know of any instances of medieval noblemen keeping quiet
> > about their wives' probably bastards - by definition! I simply
> don't
> > know of ANY instances where they renounced them. So arew you
> saying
> > there simply were no cases where the child in question was, or
> later
> > became, the heir?
> >
> Once again, the answer is that we just don't know. There are,
> however, some instances where noblemen argued that their marriages
> were void so as to get an annulment which had the effect of
> bastardising a healthy son. One was Richard FitzAlan, Earl of
> Arundel, in the 14th century. The son in question was 17 and, since
> he was a knight and later fathered three children, presumably
> healthy; so, one would have thought, a much safer bet as an heir
> than a son he might have by the second wife he was obviously keen
to
> marry. The other is Elizabeth I's favourite, Robert Dudley, Earl of
> Leicester, who claimed that his second marriage was irregular and
> thereby bastardised a son who was somewhat younger than Edmund
> FitzAlan, but again became a healthy adult (Leicester's son by his
> third wife died aged about four).

Which suggests that perhaps these men were at pains to avoid
admitting what had gone on.

I don't think that even if York had wanted an annulment he would have
got one. The Pope was a political animal, and you had to be able to
pull strings. York had been married to Cecily by the powers that be
precisely to keep him under Lancastrian control. It is hardly likely
that either the English government, or the English cardinal (Cecily's
uncle Henry Beaufort) would have supported such a suit.


>
> >
> > Tristan and Isolde, and Lancelot and Guinevere, to name the two
> > greatest pairs of lovers of medieval tale, were both involved
with
> > each other for a very long time. Indeed, oOne could argue that
> the
> > moral of the Arthurian legends is that Arthur allowed his
personal
> > jealousy of Lancelot to interfere with his rule. And don't most
> > traditional love stories end in disaster anyway?
> >
>
> They do, but again the moral of these tales is all a matter of
> interpretation.
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > He may well have heard - Jones does in fact argue that he
> suspected
> > Edward wasn't his. Hence the lowkey baptism, and York's breaking
> > company with Edward after Ludlow, keeping Rutland with him. But I
> > don;t think any friend would rib a man about a thing like that
> unless
> > he were sure they both knew there was nothing in it. Traditional
> > cultures (and I remember rural Ireland many years ago) work like
> > that - people keep up a front, and gossip goes on behind their
> backs -
> > the "backbiting" that medieval moralists were so exorcised
about.
> > Ideas of right and wrong were more concerned with holding society
> > together than with personal angst.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > Yes, but everything's cabaple of more than one interpretation. No
> > children at all until Cecily was 23 - more than a couple of
> > miscarriages required there, I feel. Then a girl. Then 18 months
> and
> > a boy. Then 15 1/2 months and Edward, possibly not the Duke's,
> > however.
> > Then, suddenly, for a few years the pregnancies start falling
over
> > each other. 12 1/2 months later, Edmund. Then just over 11
months.
> > Just over 12 months. 14 months. . .
>
>
> And as we know, Cecily followed
> > her husband everywhere, even making sea voyages heavily pregnant.
> Is
> > it possible that York was frightened to let her out of her sight,
> or
> > un-pregnant??
>
> That had occurred to me, I admit.
> >
> > > Okay. However, I've not read this one. I had the view that
James
> III
> > was a useless king, and everybody found him hard to live with.
I'd
> > take some convincing this wasn't so, thinking of Douglas, and the
> > fact that his own nobles had him in prison in 1483, and his final
> > end. What about Warwick? What about 1483?
> >
> To my mind Warwick was motivated in the main by fury that he was
> being increasingly sidelined by the man he regarded as his
> protegé.
> Bear in mind that he was still relatively young - he was only 42
> when he was killed - and power was his drug, hence his desparate
> attempts to regain it.

Well, this is the accepted interpretation. But Warwick is held to be
power-crazed because he tried to supplant Edward by his younger
brother, taking advantage of a baseless claim of bastardy against
Edward. There is no earlier evidence that he was losing the plot.
This is the very school of history I have the problem with: the one
that relies on labelling protagonists as unstable or irrational in
some way in order to explain away their behaviour. One I can take,
but we have Warwick and Clarence simultaneously. And then more
Clarence (he never stopped hoping to be king), and then all that 1483
business.
Marie

Warwick is held to be
> power-crazed because he tried to supplant Edward by his younger
> brother, taking advantage of a baseless claim of bastardy against
> Edward. There is no earlier evidence that he was losing the plot.
> This is the very school of history I have the problem with: the
one
> that relies on labelling protagonists as unstable or irrational in
> some way in order to explain away their behaviour. One I can take,
> but we have Warwick and Clarence simultaneously. And then more
> Clarence (he never stopped hoping to be king), and then all that
1483
> business.


Here I am trying to answer two messages in one go, so bear with me
if I leave something out.

People do behave irrationally, and jealousy, particularly within
families, is a very powerful thing. In the period of which we are
talking, what we might term the peculiar mystique of the anointed
king had very largely been destroyed by a succession of depositions.
For Warwick, having 'made' one king (and doubtless convinced himself
that Edward IV would never have come near the throne without his
efforts) it was not a very large step to attempt to replace that
king with what he hoped would be a more pliable alternative. For
Clarence and then Richard III, having seen their brother fight his
way to the throne, it was also not a very great step to making a bid
for the throne on their own accounts. There are strange features, to
me, most obviously, that neither Clarence nor Warwick knew when to
retire from the fray, but to assume that there is only one possible
explanation, as Jones and his supporters seem to have decided, is
simplistic.

Having had another look at Jones's book, I find he is even vaguer
than I thought initially about the precise dates of the Pontoise
campaign. He states that according to the 'Rouen document' he relies
on York broke the siege of Pontoise a second time on 6th August. He
then gives 20tgh August as the date for York's return to Rouen and
states that the entire campaign lasted five weeks. What he does not
do, and for me this is a serious gap in his historical method, is
quote the relevant passage or passages verbatim. As an academic
myself (admittedly lawyer not historian, but with a history degree)
I expect to see any contentious passage quoted, and where the
original is in a foreign language, in its original form as well as
in translation. Therefore, we cannot tell what it actually says, and
whether the conclusions he draws from it are valid. He also does not
give a starting date for the campaign, and an item which has just
appeared on the Burke's Peerage website raises the interesting
suggestion that Edward IV might have been conceived BEFORE York's
departure and was then born late. In addition, without seeing the
document or any evidence on Cecily's movements, can we be certain
that she did not visit York at Pontoise during a lull in the
fighting?

As to Jones's own experiences, I am vague on the details. I do,
however, remember reading somewhere that he has a child who was born
prematurely. If, and I say if, this child was very premature and
survived only because of modern technology it might well be
imprinted on his brain that premature means extremely fragile, and
that it is impossible to be a bit early and healthy, as is in fact
far from unusual.

We can argue this for evermore, but the point I started from was
that we should not turn the Jones hypothesis into received wisdom.
We are dealing with a bundle of circumstantial evidence which, like
all circumstantial evidence, is capable of more than one
interpretation (let's face it, lawyers are constantly constructing
convincing-sounding edifices from circumstancial evidence, which
their opponents then equally convincingly knock down!)

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Warwick is held to be
> > power-crazed because he tried to supplant Edward by his younger
> > brother, taking advantage of a baseless claim of bastardy against
> > Edward. There is no earlier evidence that he was losing the plot.
> > This is the very school of history I have the problem with: the
> one
> > that relies on labelling protagonists as unstable or irrational
in
> > some way in order to explain away their behaviour. One I can
take,
> > but we have Warwick and Clarence simultaneously. And then more
> > Clarence (he never stopped hoping to be king), and then all that
> 1483
> > business.
>
>
> Here I am trying to answer two messages in one go, so bear with me
> if I leave something out.
>
> People do behave irrationally, and jealousy, particularly within
> families, is a very powerful thing. In the period of which we are
> talking, what we might term the peculiar mystique of the anointed
> king had very largely been destroyed by a succession of
depositions.
> For Warwick, having 'made' one king (and doubtless convinced
himself
> that Edward IV would never have come near the throne without his
> efforts) it was not a very large step to attempt to replace that
> king with what he hoped would be a more pliable alternative. For
> Clarence and then Richard III, having seen their brother fight his
> way to the throne, it was also not a very great step to making a
bid
> for the throne on their own accounts. There are strange features,
to
> me, most obviously, that neither Clarence nor Warwick knew when to
> retire from the fray, but to assume that there is only one possible
> explanation, as Jones and his supporters seem to have decided, is
> simplistic.

I can't speak for Jones, but I have not decided there is only one
possible explanation. We have often been told Warwick believed Edward
woud not have been king without him, but again this is received
wisdom rather than a known fact. I personally doubt it. Warwick lost
St Albans, and it was only Edward's personal victories at Mortimer's
Cross and Towton that secured him the throne. Warwick is unlikely to
have been too dim to have seen that. However, he must have resented
being left to deal with the Lancastrian threat on the borders for the
next 5 years. The real crunch seems to have come with Edward's
marriage, but was it his own personal humiliation over Bona of Savoy,
or Cecily's shocking revelation of Edward's bastardy, that really
caused the shift?


>
> Having had another look at Jones's book, I find he is even vaguer
> than I thought initially about the precise dates of the Pontoise
> campaign. He states that according to the 'Rouen document' he
relies
> on York broke the siege of Pontoise a second time on 6th August. He
> then gives 20tgh August as the date for York's return to Rouen and
> states that the entire campaign lasted five weeks. What he does not
> do, and for me this is a serious gap in his historical method, is
> quote the relevant passage or passages verbatim. As an academic
> myself (admittedly lawyer not historian, but with a history degree)
> I expect to see any contentious passage quoted, and where the
> original is in a foreign language, in its original form as well as
> in translation. Therefore, we cannot tell what it actually says,
and
> whether the conclusions he draws from it are valid.

I totally agree with you here. He is now a freelance - ie he lives on
sales of his books - so perhaps this inclines him to write in a more
populist way, but it is very annoying.

He also does not
> give a starting date for the campaign, and an item which has just
> appeared on the Burke's Peerage website raises the interesting
> suggestion that Edward IV might have been conceived BEFORE York's
> departure and was then born late. In addition, without seeing the
> document or any evidence on Cecily's movements, can we be certain
> that she did not visit York at Pontoise during a lull in the
> fighting?

Apparently Edward's own claim was that he was conceived in Hatfield,
Yorkshire, before his parents travelled to France. This is
impossible. Perhaps he was conceived just before his father left
Rouen in July. I believe I once read an old book which said Cecily
sailed to France 3 weeks after York, in which case she would have
missed him completely. However, Jones has not heard of this and I
can't now find the book. I'll look up the dates for the campaign if I
can, but certainly York left way back in July.
As for Cecily's visiting York in Pontoise, I have dealt with that in
last message.

>
> As to Jones's own experiences, I am vague on the details. I do,
> however, remember reading somewhere that he has a child who was
born
> prematurely. If, and I say if, this child was very premature and
> survived only because of modern technology it might well be
> imprinted on his brain that premature means extremely fragile, and
> that it is impossible to be a bit early and healthy, as is in fact
> far from unusual.

Can we hold fire on that until we have some statistics, as Stephen
suggests? By the by, does your mother by any chance think she
conceived impossibly EARLY in the month? If so, that would affect the
real due date of course.

>
> We can argue this for evermore, but the point I started from was
> that we should not turn the Jones hypothesis into received wisdom.
> We are dealing with a bundle of circumstantial evidence which, like
> all circumstantial evidence, is capable of more than one
> interpretation (let's face it, lawyers are constantly constructing
> convincing-sounding edifices from circumstancial evidence, which
> their opponents then equally convincingly knock down!)

I think all we ever have is circumstantial evidence. But as you'll
know, even legally that is admissable. Most of our received wisdom on
this period is based on assumption and I have no bother at all with
putting the case for alternatives. But I think that calls it a day on
this one, unless something else turns up on Saturday's prog.

Marie
>

>
> Can we hold fire on that until we have some statistics, as Stephen
> suggests? By the by, does your mother by any chance think she
> conceived impossibly EARLY in the month? If so, that would affect
the
> real due date of course.
>
>
Here comes the embarrassing admission! My parents married on 20th
March 1959; I was born on 27th November, having been due on 13th
December. I first noticed the discrepancy when I was about 13 - yes,
I was early, but 13th December is still less than nine months after
the wedding. In response to the sniggers (how could I be so naive as
to think that my parents weren't at it before the wedding?), I can
say that my father is a very old-fashioned man with a very
traditional view of morality. My mother is very religious and also
now terminally ill; I have no difficulty in accepting that she is
telling the truth when she says that I must have been conceived
during the honeymoon and in all probability on the wedding night.

>
> I think all we ever have is circumstantial evidence. But as you'll
> know, even legally that is admissable. Most of our received wisdom
on
> this period is based on assumption and I have no bother at all
with
> putting the case for alternatives. But I think that calls it a day
on
> this one, unless something else turns up on Saturday's prog.
>
>
For once, I agree with you. (Now can I cope with two hours of Tony
Robinson withoutg hurling a brick at the TV?)

Ann

Bob asked: Didn't More accuse Richard of having
claimed that Edward was illegitimate after the latter
died?

***

It looks like he did. Thise quote comes from "Richard
III; the great debate. More's History of King Richard
III/Walpole's Historic Doubts," ed. by Paul Murray
Kendall.

"Now then, as I began to show you, it was by the
Protector and his council concluded that this Doctor
Shaa should in a sermon at Paul's Cross signify to the
people that neither King Edward himself nor the Duke
of Clarence were lawfully begot, nor were the very
children of the Duke of York who were got unlawfully
by other persons by the adultery of the Duchess their
mother." (p. 86)

Perhaps other editions of More's "History of King
Richard III" put it differently. I haven't done any
comparisons yet.

In the quote I've given, More doesn't stop at accusing
Richard *and his council* of calling Edward IV a
bastard. He adds Clarence and an unspecified number
of other "very children of the Duke of York who were
got unlawfully by other persons by the adultery of the
Duchess their mother."

I've always thought More's story of Brakenbury's
priest was overkill. Here's another example.

Hope this helps,

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Can we hold fire on that until we have some statistics, as
Stephen
> > suggests? By the by, does your mother by any chance think she
> > conceived impossibly EARLY in the month? If so, that would affect
> the
> > real due date of course.
> >
> >
> Here comes the embarrassing admission! My parents married on 20th
> March 1959; I was born on 27th November, having been due on 13th
> December. I first noticed the discrepancy when I was about 13 -
yes,
> I was early, but 13th December is still less than nine months after
> the wedding. In response to the sniggers (how could I be so naive
as
> to think that my parents weren't at it before the wedding?), I can
> say that my father is a very old-fashioned man with a very
> traditional view of morality. My mother is very religious and also
> now terminally ill; I have no difficulty in accepting that she is
> telling the truth when she says that I must have been conceived
> during the honeymoon and in all probability on the wedding night.

Sorry, Ann, perhaps you misunderstod me. And I'm really very sorry to
hear about your mum.
I was just thinking of what I said in earlier message about period
being 2 weeks after last ovulation, but ovulation NOT necessarily 2
weeks after last period? That is all I was asking. If your mother
thought, as you tell me, (and I don't know whether you meant it was
with yourself or one of your siblings) that she had conceived at a
time when it was supposed to have been impossible, I just wondered
whether she might have ovulated unusually soon after last period. (I
know someone, in fact, who seems to have conceived more or less at
the time her last period came on. She was having very sure pregnancy
symptoms even before the next one was due, and the scan later
confirmed the baby was 2 weeks ahead of expected dates.) This would
simply mean that counting 40 weeks from last period would give a due
date which was actually too late in that particular case, and I
wondered if that could have at least partially explain the earlier
than expected delivery.
Evidently that doesn't apply to your own case. Evidently, if the due
date given your mum was 13th December, one must assume this was based
on the fact that her last period had started exactly 14 days before
the wedding.

But your own story and Cecily's are not the same tale. You don't have
to prove Cecily Neville a virtuous woman, or Edward IV an early baby,
to satisfy yourself that you were conceived in wedlock.

Anyway, can we focus on the fact that you were born 16 days early,
whereas Edward it seems cannot have been conceived before 24 August
and so cannot at the very best have been less than 19 days early? I
am nbot saying - and have never said - this is impossible - only that
in weighing up the probabilities, if we leave out the human drama and
just look at the statistical probabilities, Edward is much more
likely to have been conceived during the Pontoise campaign than
afterwards. I only pointed it out because you specifically claimed he
was just as likely to have been three weeks early as "on time". I
understand your personal reasons for arguing this, but it is just not
the case. There is a difference between probabilities and proof,
evidently, but to say a thing is possible is not to say that it is as
likely as another option.

With reference to Cecily and the archer, to draw on my own family
history - my grandmother was a very stiff and proper Victorian lady,
and it was with amazement that my mother discovered when my aunt died
that the birthday said aunt had always kept was not correct. She had
in fact been born several months earlier - just four months after her
parents' marriage in fact. Now I know that's not the same as
adultery, but perhaps we should consider the possibility (again, just
a possibilty - we have to be able to hold more than one possibility
in our heads at the same time) that Cecily's early marriage was
unhappy, that York may have avoided consummating the match for many
years in order to absolve himself of his vows, and that Cecily may
have been lonely, and even angry.
I see the question of Cecily's readiness for childbearing is again
being raised. As I've made clear, I see NO evidence that well-fed
aristocratic girls at that period reached puberty later than
ourselves (in fact, this was covered on my PGCE course, and this was
the conclusion). Most noblewomen of the period had their first child
at around 17 or 18. Margaret Beaufort's apparent gynae damage is not
relevant. She was still 13 when she produced Tudor. Cecily was 23
years & 3 months when Anne was born. Anne survived. So did the next
one Henry. So I don't accept that Edward's low-key baptism would have
been because he was expected to die "like the others".

Thomas Betson's letter to his 14-year-old betrothed (Cely letters -
quoted by Kendall) suggests to me that a girl was considered ready
for childbearing once she had stopped growing. Which fits in well
with the age one tends to see the eldest child arriving.

Of course Cecily may have had a few miscarriages first, but I still
say one can fit an inordinate number of miscarriages into 8 years (a
stillborn prem baby would I think have been named and mentioned in
the lists) and that other possibilities shouldn't be shunned. Would
York have waited until his wife was in her early 20s just to give her
a better chance in the childbearing game? Unlikely - that was way
beyond normal limits for their class, and he was besides four years
older than she was. They were however married before October 1423,
when they were both below the canonical age of consent, so there were
grounds for an annulment should one have been sought (by either
party). But, as I say, I can't see York having been successful in any
such quest because of opposition from the government and the
Beauforts (most powerfully in the shape of Cardinal Henry).

Yes, the traditional interpretation is possible - but there are
problems, aren't there?

Marie






> >
> > I think all we ever have is circumstantial evidence. But as
you'll
> > know, even legally that is admissable. Most of our received
wisdom
> on
> > this period is based on assumption and I have no bother at all
> with
> > putting the case for alternatives. But I think that calls it a
day
> on
> > this one, unless something else turns up on Saturday's prog.
> >
> >
> For once, I agree with you. (Now can I cope with two hours of Tony
> Robinson withoutg hurling a brick at the TV?)
>
> Ann

> Sorry, Ann, perhaps you misunderstod me. And I'm really very sorry
to
> hear about your mum.

Thank you.

> I was just thinking of what I said in earlier message about period
> being 2 weeks after last ovulation, but ovulation NOT necessarily
2
> weeks after last period? That is all I was asking. If your mother
> thought, as you tell me, (and I don't know whether you meant it
was
> with yourself or one of your siblings) that she had conceived at a
> time when it was supposed to have been impossible, I just wondered
> whether she might have ovulated unusually soon after last period.
(I
> know someone, in fact, who seems to have conceived more or less at
> the time her last period came on. She was having very sure
pregnancy
> symptoms even before the next one was due, and the scan later
> confirmed the baby was 2 weeks ahead of expected dates.) This
would
> simply mean that counting 40 weeks from last period would give a
due
> date which was actually too late in that particular case, and I
> wondered if that could have at least partially explain the earlier
> than expected delivery.
> Evidently that doesn't apply to your own case. Evidently, if the
due
> date given your mum was 13th December, one must assume this was
based
> on the fact that her last period had started exactly 14 days
before
> the wedding.

It does sound as though I am a bit muddled. My brother (not quite
three years younger) is the one who was conceived at a time when, if
the rhythm method was reliable, it should have been impossible. It
is a family joke that he is 'living proof that Vatican roulette
doesn't work'.

>
> But your own story and Cecily's are not the same tale. You don't
have
> to prove Cecily Neville a virtuous woman, or Edward IV an early
baby,
> to satisfy yourself that you were conceived in wedlock.

No, I'm not out to prove anything. The point I started from is that
we should be careful not to treat the Jones hypothesis as a
certainty or near certainty. Incidentally, I have just sat through
one hour of Tony Robinson and found that there was a great deal of
simplification - running together of the events of 1469-70 and no
mention of Warwick! The TV is still intact, but the second
instalment was likely to put it too much at risk.
>
> Anyway, can we focus on the fact that you were born 16 days early,
> whereas Edward it seems cannot have been conceived before 24
August
> and so cannot at the very best have been less than 19 days early?

According to Jones on TV , and his source is the daily log of Rouen
cathdral, the Duke actually returned on 21st August.

I
> am nbot saying - and have never said - this is impossible - only
that
> in weighing up the probabilities, if we leave out the human drama
and
> just look at the statistical probabilities, Edward is much more
> likely to have been conceived during the Pontoise campaign than
> afterwards. I only pointed it out because you specifically claimed
he
> was just as likely to have been three weeks early as "on time". I
> understand your personal reasons for arguing this, but it is just
not
> the case. There is a difference between probabilities and proof,
> evidently, but to say a thing is possible is not to say that it is
as
> likely as another option.
>
The problem here is that Jones does not seem to have considered the
possibility that Edward was early, simply assumed that as he grew to
6ft 3 he must have been full-term. My brother, who was earlier than
I was, and smaller (some 5 1/2 lbs) is now 5ft 11 (with a short
father and a mother who has a tall brother and tall nephews).


> With reference to Cecily and the archer, to draw on my own family
> history - my grandmother was a very stiff and proper Victorian
lady,
> and it was with amazement that my mother discovered when my aunt
died
> that the birthday said aunt had always kept was not correct. She
had
> in fact been born several months earlier - just four months after
her
> parents' marriage in fact. Now I know that's not the same as
> adultery, but perhaps we should consider the possibility (again,
just
> a possibilty - we have to be able to hold more than one
possibility
> in our heads at the same time) that Cecily's early marriage was
> unhappy, that York may have avoided consummating the match for
many
> years in order to absolve himself of his vows, and that Cecily may
> have been lonely, and even angry.
> I see the question of Cecily's readiness for childbearing is again
> being raised. As I've made clear, I see NO evidence that well-fed
> aristocratic girls at that period reached puberty later than
> ourselves (in fact, this was covered on my PGCE course, and this
was
> the conclusion). Most noblewomen of the period had their first
child
> at around 17 or 18. Margaret Beaufort's apparent gynae damage is
not
> relevant. She was still 13 when she produced Tudor.

What I was seeking to say here was that husbands (and presumably the
parents of young brides) were aware that childbirth when very young
could well be more dangerous than it was in any event, and therefore
tended to delay consummation.

>
> Thomas Betson's letter to his 14-year-old betrothed (Cely letters -

> quoted by Kendall) suggests to me that a girl was considered ready
> for childbearing once she had stopped growing. Which fits in well
> with the age one tends to see the eldest child arriving.
>
> Of course Cecily may have had a few miscarriages first, but I
still
> say one can fit an inordinate number of miscarriages into 8 years
(a
> stillborn prem baby would I think have been named and mentioned in
> the lists) and that other possibilities shouldn't be shunned.
Would
> York have waited until his wife was in her early 20s just to give
her
> a better chance in the childbearing game? Unlikely - that was way
> beyond normal limits for their class, and he was besides four
years
> older than she was. They were however married before October 1423,
> when they were both below the canonical age of consent, so there
were
> grounds for an annulment should one have been sought (by either
> party). But, as I say, I can't see York having been successful in
any
> such quest because of opposition from the government and the
> Beauforts (most powerfully in the shape of Cardinal Henry).
>
> Yes, the traditional interpretation is possible - but there are
> problems, aren't there?
>

Ah, but there are problems with the Jones interpretation as well,
and we should bear the alternative possibilities in mind.

Further, if in 1469-70 Warwick recognised Clarence as the true
legitimate heir to the throne, why did he virtually abandon Clarence
as his partner in events and turn to Margaret of Anjou? The Jones
thesis doesn't deal with this.

Ann

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Bob asked: Didn't More accuse Richard of having
> claimed that Edward was illegitimate after the latter
> died?
>
> ***
>
> It looks like he did. Thise quote comes from "Richard
> III; the great debate. More's History of King Richard
> III/Walpole's Historic Doubts," ed. by Paul Murray
> Kendall.
>
> "Now then, as I began to show you, it was by the
> Protector and his council concluded that this Doctor
> Shaa should in a sermon at Paul's Cross signify to the
> people that neither King Edward himself nor the Duke
> of Clarence were lawfully begot, nor were the very
> children of the Duke of York who were got unlawfully
> by other persons by the adultery of the Duchess their
> mother." (p. 86)
>
> Perhaps other editions of More's "History of King
> Richard III" put it differently. I haven't done any
> comparisons yet.
>
> In the quote I've given, More doesn't stop at accusing
> Richard *and his council* of calling Edward IV a
> bastard. He adds Clarence and an unspecified number
> of other "very children of the Duke of York who were
> got unlawfully by other persons by the adultery of the
> Duchess their mother."
>
> I've always thought More's story of Brakenbury's
> priest was overkill. Here's another example.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Marion
>
Everything More wrote was overkill IMHO. He bludgeons the reader
with his prose, telling us what he is going to say, saying it,
sometimes more than once, then telling us what he just said. That's
why I am certain that the "History of King Richard III" attributed to
him is only partly his work. There is a change of style in the
middle of a page that is abrupt enough to give you whiplash. The
first part of the story is from a gifted writer -- the words sing,
the scenes are dramatic, the pacing wonderful. It's downright
cinematic. Then along comes More with his characteristic turgid
style, and he backs up and tells us stuff that as aready been
covered. The first writer is Morton, I'm convinced. The second is
pure More.

Katy

Katy

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, Ann, perhaps you misunderstod me. And I'm really very
sorry
> to
> > hear about your mum.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > I was just thinking of what I said in earlier message about
period
> > being 2 weeks after last ovulation, but ovulation NOT necessarily
> 2
> > weeks after last period? That is all I was asking. If your mother
> > thought, as you tell me, (and I don't know whether you meant it
> was
> > with yourself or one of your siblings) that she had conceived at
a
> > time when it was supposed to have been impossible, I just
wondered
> > whether she might have ovulated unusually soon after last period.
> (I
> > know someone, in fact, who seems to have conceived more or less
at
> > the time her last period came on. She was having very sure
> pregnancy
> > symptoms even before the next one was due, and the scan later
> > confirmed the baby was 2 weeks ahead of expected dates.) This
> would
> > simply mean that counting 40 weeks from last period would give a
> due
> > date which was actually too late in that particular case, and I
> > wondered if that could have at least partially explain the
earlier
> > than expected delivery.
> > Evidently that doesn't apply to your own case. Evidently, if the
> due
> > date given your mum was 13th December, one must assume this was
> based
> > on the fact that her last period had started exactly 14 days
> before
> > the wedding.
>
> It does sound as though I am a bit muddled. My brother (not quite
> three years younger) is the one who was conceived at a time when,
if
> the rhythm method was reliable, it should have been impossible. It
> is a family joke that he is 'living proof that Vatican roulette
> doesn't work'.
>
> >
> > But your own story and Cecily's are not the same tale. You don't
> have
> > to prove Cecily Neville a virtuous woman, or Edward IV an early
> baby,
> > to satisfy yourself that you were conceived in wedlock.
>
> No, I'm not out to prove anything. The point I started from is that
> we should be careful not to treat the Jones hypothesis as a
> certainty or near certainty. Incidentally, I have just sat through
> one hour of Tony Robinson and found that there was a great deal of
> simplification - running together of the events of 1469-70 and no
> mention of Warwick! The TV is still intact, but the second
> instalment was likely to put it too much at risk.
> >
> > Anyway, can we focus on the fact that you were born 16 days
early,
> > whereas Edward it seems cannot have been conceived before 24
> August
> > and so cannot at the very best have been less than 19 days early?
>
> According to Jones on TV , and his source is the daily log of Rouen
> cathdral, the Duke actually returned on 21st August.
>
> I
> > am nbot saying - and have never said - this is impossible - only
> that
> > in weighing up the probabilities, if we leave out the human drama
> and
> > just look at the statistical probabilities, Edward is much more
> > likely to have been conceived during the Pontoise campaign than
> > afterwards. I only pointed it out because you specifically
claimed
> he
> > was just as likely to have been three weeks early as "on time". I
> > understand your personal reasons for arguing this, but it is just
> not
> > the case. There is a difference between probabilities and proof,
> > evidently, but to say a thing is possible is not to say that it
is
> as
> > likely as another option.
> >
> The problem here is that Jones does not seem to have considered the
> possibility that Edward was early, simply assumed that as he grew
to
> 6ft 3 he must have been full-term. My brother, who was earlier than
> I was, and smaller (some 5 1/2 lbs) is now 5ft 11 (with a short
> father and a mother who has a tall brother and tall nephews).
>
>
> > With reference to Cecily and the archer, to draw on my own family
> > history - my grandmother was a very stiff and proper Victorian
> lady,
> > and it was with amazement that my mother discovered when my aunt
> died
> > that the birthday said aunt had always kept was not correct. She
> had
> > in fact been born several months earlier - just four months after
> her
> > parents' marriage in fact. Now I know that's not the same as
> > adultery, but perhaps we should consider the possibility (again,
> just
> > a possibilty - we have to be able to hold more than one
> possibility
> > in our heads at the same time) that Cecily's early marriage was
> > unhappy, that York may have avoided consummating the match for
> many
> > years in order to absolve himself of his vows, and that Cecily
may
> > have been lonely, and even angry.
> > I see the question of Cecily's readiness for childbearing is
again
> > being raised. As I've made clear, I see NO evidence that well-fed
> > aristocratic girls at that period reached puberty later than
> > ourselves (in fact, this was covered on my PGCE course, and this
> was
> > the conclusion). Most noblewomen of the period had their first
> child
> > at around 17 or 18. Margaret Beaufort's apparent gynae damage is
> not
> > relevant. She was still 13 when she produced Tudor.
>
> What I was seeking to say here was that husbands (and presumably
the
> parents of young brides) were aware that childbirth when very young
> could well be more dangerous than it was in any event, and
therefore
> tended to delay consummation.
>
> >
> > Thomas Betson's letter to his 14-year-old betrothed (Cely
letters -
>
> > quoted by Kendall) suggests to me that a girl was considered
ready
> > for childbearing once she had stopped growing. Which fits in well
> > with the age one tends to see the eldest child arriving.
> >
> > Of course Cecily may have had a few miscarriages first, but I
> still
> > say one can fit an inordinate number of miscarriages into 8 years
> (a
> > stillborn prem baby would I think have been named and mentioned
in
> > the lists) and that other possibilities shouldn't be shunned.
> Would
> > York have waited until his wife was in her early 20s just to give
> her
> > a better chance in the childbearing game? Unlikely - that was way
> > beyond normal limits for their class, and he was besides four
> years
> > older than she was. They were however married before October
1423,
> > when they were both below the canonical age of consent, so there
> were
> > grounds for an annulment should one have been sought (by either
> > party). But, as I say, I can't see York having been successful in
> any
> > such quest because of opposition from the government and the
> > Beauforts (most powerfully in the shape of Cardinal Henry).
> >
> > Yes, the traditional interpretation is possible - but there are
> > problems, aren't there?> >
>
> Ah, but there are problems with the Jones interpretation as well,
> and we should bear the alternative possibilities in mind.

Well, it's unprovable but that's the only problem I see. As Michael
Hicks, Michael Bennett et al said on the prog., there is something
OTT about the Yorkist period: Clarence's treason goes way beyond
anything Albany ever did, also Edward's response. Brother kills
brother; uncle deposes nephews; nephews disappear. King's mother
stated to have called him a bastard and offered to make a formal
deposition. Tudor, although he marries Edward's heiress, is either
too proud or too frightened to rely on her claim, and his whole
dynasty is homicidally scared of Plantagenet heirs (were ANY of the
P's that were done away with by the Tudors the offspring of
Elizabeth's sisters, by the way??? I really don't know and am asking.
But if not, the question must be - why not?).
Cecily was a hard woman to cross, and perhaps only Edward's marriage
turned her against him, and then only halfway. Perhaps if you have
children of your own you'll see it from a different perspective. York
couldn't be sure without Cecily's admission. Cecily must protect her
child.

>
> Further, if in 1469-70 Warwick recognised Clarence as the true
> legitimate heir to the throne, why did he virtually abandon
Clarence
> as his partner in events and turn to Margaret of Anjou?

Because he had to??? Louis wouldn't help him for Clarence's benefit.
Edward wouldn't have him back. The settlement actually did make
Clarence Henry VI's heir after Edward of Lancaster. And either way
Warwick would have a daughter as queen. But who knows what Warwick
had in mind? Any plans he had were cut short at Barnet. Montagu
apparently died on Warwick's side at Barnet wearing the Yorkist
livery under his Lancastrian one.

Also, the problem with traditional Ricardian 1483 is that Richard
still takes the throne for an ephemeral claim: ie that Edward's
marriage was invalid. The lady was dead so it wasn't provable. The
rest - the profane nature of the union with Elizabeth (it seems it
was another lover's pact, ie no priest and no church) - was old news.
He could have used it or not. If he chose to one must assume he was
either ambitious for the throne or frightened of what the future held
if he didn't. The latter is valid - BUT it all happened rather too
fast. The idea that the Woodvilles knew there was an even worse
problem - one which could be proved because the lady in question WAS
still alive - that would explain the plots and fears, and Richard's
very sudden move for the crown, much better.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> I see the question of Cecily's readiness for childbearing is again
> being raised. As I've made clear, I see NO evidence that well-fed
> aristocratic girls at that period reached puberty later than
> ourselves (in fact, this was covered on my PGCE course, and this
was
> the conclusion). Most noblewomen of the period had their first
child
> at around 17 or 18.

My reading indicates the same. It was later, in the Tudor years and
on into and throughthe Industrial Revolution, that the general health
of the population declined and people became shorter due to poor
nutrition as the population moved from the countryside into cities.
The only difference in maturation of females in the 15th century and
today that isn't connected to nutrition and hygiene is theeffect of
artificial light, which may be acting to push the age of puberty ever
earlier. It is not at all uncommon for girls in developed countries
to start puberty at age 12, whereas even a century ago 16 was the
usual age.

> Of course Cecily may have had a few miscarriages first, but I still
> say one can fit an inordinate number of miscarriages into 8 years
(a
> stillborn prem baby would I think have been named and mentioned in
> the lists)

I thought that by Medieval Catholic teachings, only the living can be
baptized, so stillborn babies would not have been named. Conversely
if we see a baby named in documents, we can assume it was born alive,
thus could notave been an early nonviable miscarriage. Does anyone
have any concrete info on this?

By the way, I had either forgotten about or not known about the baby
boy (Henry?) who came before Edward. Do we know how long he lived or
what happened to him?


Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > I see the question of Cecily's readiness for childbearing is
again
> > being raised. As I've made clear, I see NO evidence that well-fed
> > aristocratic girls at that period reached puberty later than
> > ourselves (in fact, this was covered on my PGCE course, and this
> was
> > the conclusion). Most noblewomen of the period had their first
> child
> > at around 17 or 18.
>
> My reading indicates the same. It was later, in the Tudor years
and
> on into and throughthe Industrial Revolution, that the general
health
> of the population declined and people became shorter due to poor
> nutrition as the population moved from the countryside into
cities.
> The only difference in maturation of females in the 15th century
and
> today that isn't connected to nutrition and hygiene is theeffect of
> artificial light, which may be acting to push the age of puberty
ever
> earlier. It is not at all uncommon for girls in developed
countries
> to start puberty at age 12, whereas even a century ago 16 was the
> usual age.
>
> > Of course Cecily may have had a few miscarriages first, but I
still
> > say one can fit an inordinate number of miscarriages into 8 years
> (a
> > stillborn prem baby would I think have been named and mentioned
in
> > the lists)
>
> I thought that by Medieval Catholic teachings, only the living can
be
> baptized, so stillborn babies would not have been named.
Conversely
> if we see a baby named in documents, we can assume it was born
alive,
> thus could notave been an early nonviable miscarriage. Does anyone
> have any concrete info on this?

You do have a point, Katy, but even so it doesn't seem that simple.
Fom medieval times I can only go by Nicholas Orme's section on same
in his "Medieval Children". He starts by asserting:
"Even during the dangers of delivery, a child could not be baptised
until at least its head emerged from the womb, so that those dying
before that point were necessarily unbaptised."I assume even from
this that a baby which was the subject of a difficult delivery might
be baptised once the crown of its head had appeared at all, at which
point I suppose it would be anybody's guess if it were still alive.
However, Orme then admits that even this this was not a universal
view. 15th century canon lawyer William Lyndwood proposed that babies
in the womb might be directly baptised by the Holy Spirit, as also
might good pagans. Other writers proposed that an angel might perform
the baptism on God's behalf. AND "Sometimes, it seems, infants were
cristened when born dead, in the hope of ensuring their salvation.
Henry Bracton, writing in the thirteenth century, made a baby's legal
birth dependent on its uttering a cry. Baptism and burial as a
Christian, he observed, were not a reliable guide because midwives
were accustomed to say that children were born alive when this was
not so. . . . When Emma de Hereford was crushed in a crowd at Oxford
in 1300, giving birth to a stillborn child, an inquest into his death
found that he died in his mother's womb, but the fact that he had a
name - Roger - suggests that he too had been christened. The rule
excluding stillborn children from consecrated ground was not always
followed,either. "
My own family experience mid 20th century certainly suggests things
may not have been as rigid as the letter of the law suggests. My
parents (who were Catholic) had two babies before myself and my twin
brother, who both died shortly after birth; both were baptized after
death (born in different places so not even the same people
involved), the rationale given in each case being that no one can be
sure when a soul leaves the body.

Likewise, the Catholic doctrine is that suicide is a mortal (ie
damnable) sin, but most (not all) suicides have in practice always
been accorded the last rites and a Christian burial on the grounds
that they may well have been deranged (and therefore innocent of sin)
when they did it, or may have repented before death.

I think it is probably worth remembering that the churchmen who made
these rules were, at least officially, celibate and childless, and
that such legalistic niceties may have seemed all very well to them,
but would have outraged the natural sensibilities of parents and
midwives, and were therefore, I suspect, routinely fudged.

>
> By the way, I had either forgotten about or not known about the
baby
> boy (Henry?) who came before Edward. Do we know how long he lived
or
> what happened to him?

No, unfortunately. The rhyme on York's children was written firstly
in Latin with a bare list of births and deaths, then translated into
English verse, more wordily. It is hard to tell how much of the
English version is reliable, and how much was chosen merely to make
up the rhyme. The English version on Henry, for what that is worth,
does suggest he was still alive when Edward was born ["But my Lord
Harry/ God chosen hath to inherit Heaven's bliss,/ And left Edward to
inherit temporally"]. All we can say for sure is that Henry had died
before the early part of 1445, when we know York was negotiating to
marry Edward to one of the daughters of Charles VII of France (this
was just after the truce sealed by Henry's marriage to Margaret of
Anjou had been fixed).
I hardly need to say that if York had a living heir in August 1441
Cecily would have had somewhat less reason to fear the consequences
of a brief passionate liaison.

Marie
>
>
> Katy

>
>
> Ah, but there are problems with the Jones interpretation as well,
> and we should bear the alternative possibilities in mind.
>
> Further, if in 1469-70 Warwick recognised Clarence as the true
> legitimate heir to the throne, why did he virtually abandon
Clarence
> as his partner in events and turn to Margaret of Anjou? The Jones
> thesis doesn't deal with this.
>
> Ann

Ann, can't help wondering here if that was down to Clarence himself.
It's all very well pinning your flsag to piece of prize bloodline
but when the individual turns out to be a drunk, weakling and
faithless one he may have had no alternative but to rethink.

As for the prog, it couldn't deal with everything in an hour, and
there were lots of things it didn't mention or follow up or over-
simplified. It did, however, set me off wondering about inheritance.
They once did a programme claiming the rightful king was a black
gentleman, but they were working from one of the George's. For all
we know there may be descendants of Harold Godwinson or Edward the
Elder out there. After all, there are those claiming direct descent
from one of Harold's brothers, and I saw a site with a Yank claiming
direct descent from Clovis (which I could certainly disprove for the
6thC though may well have been accurate back to that point), so why
not an Anglo-Saxon ruler of the Wessex house?
Brunhild

Bob wrote: I was tempted to plead for "no More," but
instead I'll ask whether the Latin *morus* might be
the root of our word "moron."

***

Marie wrote: Interesting. The "-on" suffix tends to
be a superlative, doesn't it - so moron a really big
fool?

***

If that's right, then maybe More's "Richard III" was
a really big jest.

I've asked myself what More and Shakespeare might have
thought if they could have forseen the reaction to
their "Richard III"s.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

At 11:32 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
>Bob wrote: I was tempted to plead for "no More," but
>instead I'll ask whether the Latin *morus* might be
>the root of our word "moron."
>
>***
>
>Marie wrote: Interesting. The "-on" suffix tends to
>be a superlative, doesn't it - so moron a really big
>fool?
>
>***
>
>If that's right, then maybe More's "Richard III" was
>a really big jest.
>
>I've asked myself what More and Shakespeare might have
>thought if they could have forseen the reaction to
>their "Richard III"s.
>
>Marion

Hmmm. "The Comedy of Richard III." Now that I think of it, perhaps
Shakespeare was in on the joke. Think of how he uses the character of
Richard- as a narrator, and one with a sense of humor at that! Could
Richard be the Elizabethan equivalent of "Serial Mom?"

--Bob Waters