Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon


--- 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

Precisely. For years, we have been made to believe that Richard's charge was nonsensical, suicidal and desperate. By re-examining the dynamics of the battle, Jones has shown it to be a calculated gamble that he came close to winning - if Tudor had died, the battle would have ended.
Now he has made people's attitudes between battles fall into place. I am looking forward to his speech on March 2 more than ever.
Perhaps a modern Richard would have called a press conference: "My lords, ladies and gentlemen, my mother is an adultress and my eldest brother was illegitimate, therefore his sons cannot be King", which he effectively did in Titulus Regius (no wonder it was suppressed after the battle).
Stephen.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

If I remember correctly (it's on Amazon) it is Bosworth 1485 : Psychology of a battle. I expect all UK Ricardians to be glued to Channel 4 on Saturday. From 7 to 8, Tony Robinson investigates Richard's life. From 8 to 9, Jones outlines his theories (perhaps our Aussie Earl gets a mention)?
----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon


--- 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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Thanks. I am male with no medical qualifications at all so I shall have to take account of this with my girlfriend!
However, I have a mathematics degree and, if a doctor (gynaecologist or GP) can plot a distribution, I can look at "35 weeks 3 days" (248 days) on the scale and work out how probable it is for a fully mature child (a boy who grew to about six feet).
In other words, 38 weeks (266 days) is the approximate mean.
If p(t<=248) [the probability that the term was 248 days or less] =0.29 [for example] then the probability that Edward IV was illegitimate would be 0.71 [it adds up to 1].
Now we need to examine Jones's historical evidence, find a medical distribution (from a very large sample) and calculate a probability. We should omit multiple-simultaneous-birth (litter) mothers from the sample as Cecily was not one, unless one of her live children ever had an unreported stillborn/miscarried twin.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon


--- 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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 1/2/04 9:25:44 AM Mountain Standard Time,
smlark@... writes:


> However, I have a mathematics degree and, if a doctor (gynaecologist or GP)
> can plot a distribution, I can look at "35 weeks 3 days" (248 days) on the
> scale and work out how probable it is for a fully mature child (a boy who grew
> to about six feet).
> In other words, 38 weeks (266 days) is the approximate mean.
> If p(t<=248) [the probability that the term was 248 days or less] =0.29 [for
> example] then the probability that Edward IV was illegitimate would be 0.71
> [it adds up to 1].
>





That's within 2 standard deviations, right? Was anything particular going on
at the time of Edward's birth that may have precipitated premature labour? (A
pregnant Cecily going horseback riding? Or some disturbing event which may
have thrown off her equanimity?) I need to re-read the first part of Michael's
book to review how long the Duke of York was at Pontoise. Was the battle or
skirmish of such a nature that the Duke of York had no opportunity whatsoever
to leave and visit Cecily? A "battle" only lasts hours and longstanding sieges
would probably offer brief opportunities to return ("I'm going to Rouen to
replenish our supplies.") Yeah. ;-)

Pam

--- In , PamelaJButler@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 1/2/04 9:25:44 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> smlark@i... writes:
>
>
> > However, I have a mathematics degree and, if a doctor
(gynaecologist or GP)
> > can plot a distribution, I can look at "35 weeks 3 days" (248
days) on the
> > scale and work out how probable it is for a fully mature child (a
boy who grew
> > to about six feet).
> > In other words, 38 weeks (266 days) is the approximate mean.
> > If p(t<=248) [the probability that the term was 248 days or less]
=0.29 [for
> > example] then the probability that Edward IV was illegitimate
would be 0.71
> > [it adds up to 1].
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> That's within 2 standard deviations, right? Was anything
particular going on
> at the time of Edward's birth that may have precipitated premature
labour? (A
> pregnant Cecily going horseback riding? Or some disturbing event
which may
> have thrown off her equanimity?) I need to re-read the first part
of Michael's
> book to review how long the Duke of York was at Pontoise. Was the
battle or
> skirmish of such a nature that the Duke of York had no opportunity
whatsoever
> to leave and visit Cecily? A "battle" only lasts hours and
longstanding sieges
> would probably offer brief opportunities to return ("I'm going to
Rouen to
> replenish our supplies.") Yeah. ;-)
>
> Pam

There was a siege, and a battle at one point in which York apparently
literally chased Charles VII away. The whole thing lasted several
weeks.
I discussed this with Michael Jones a couple of months ago. He
mentions that people have asked him whether York might not have
visited Rouen or vice versa, but he thinks there is no way. Rouen is
a considerable distance away from Pontoise (117 km or 73 miles by the
modern roads), which is why I added the extra days on to 20 August to
calculate earliest possible conception. There is no way York, as
overall commander, would have personally left the siege and gone back
to Rouen for supplies; supplies travel slow, and this would have had
him absent for a fortnight at a time! Nor would Cecily have visited
him in the field. Pontoise wasn't even in Normandy. Indeed it is
beyond Paris, which was by this time in French hands. And about four
days' ride away.

Sorry.

Marie

PS I'm not with Michael Jones on everything. I disagree with his
claim that Richard went straight for the crown after Edward's death;
I don't agree that Richard's responsiblity for the Princes' deaths
can be assumed, and I still remain very sceptical about his new
battlesite (although it must be said it is not as far from the old
one as writers often give the impression).


>
>
>

Two standard deviations? That would depend on the distribution; e.g. Uniform, Normal or Poisson. However, a really low probabily of legitimacy would help to justify a DNA test. We had better also be careful with those bones after these revelations because the real princes would not be Richard of York's grandsons, therefore their mother or sister Elizabeth would be the best comparison.
Now who knows a gynaecologist with an interest in history?

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon


--- In , PamelaJButler@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 1/2/04 9:25:44 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> smlark@i... writes:
>
>
> > However, I have a mathematics degree and, if a doctor
(gynaecologist or GP)
> > can plot a distribution, I can look at "35 weeks 3 days" (248
days) on the
> > scale and work out how probable it is for a fully mature child (a
boy who grew
> > to about six feet).
> > In other words, 38 weeks (266 days) is the approximate mean.
> > If p(t<=248) [the probability that the term was 248 days or less]
=0.29 [for
> > example] then the probability that Edward IV was illegitimate
would be 0.71
> > [it adds up to 1].
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> That's within 2 standard deviations, right? Was anything
particular going on
> at the time of Edward's birth that may have precipitated premature
labour? (A
> pregnant Cecily going horseback riding? Or some disturbing event
which may
> have thrown off her equanimity?) I need to re-read the first part
of Michael's
> book to review how long the Duke of York was at Pontoise. Was the
battle or
> skirmish of such a nature that the Duke of York had no opportunity
whatsoever
> to leave and visit Cecily? A "battle" only lasts hours and
longstanding sieges
> would probably offer brief opportunities to return ("I'm going to
Rouen to
> replenish our supplies.") Yeah. ;-)
>
> Pam

There was a siege, and a battle at one point in which York apparently
literally chased Charles VII away. The whole thing lasted several
weeks.
I discussed this with Michael Jones a couple of months ago. He
mentions that people have asked him whether York might not have
visited Rouen or vice versa, but he thinks there is no way. Rouen is
a considerable distance away from Pontoise (117 km or 73 miles by the
modern roads), which is why I added the extra days on to 20 August to
calculate earliest possible conception. There is no way York, as
overall commander, would have personally left the siege and gone back
to Rouen for supplies; supplies travel slow, and this would have had
him absent for a fortnight at a time! Nor would Cecily have visited
him in the field. Pontoise wasn't even in Normandy. Indeed it is
beyond Paris, which was by this time in French hands. And about four
days' ride away.

Sorry.

Marie

PS I'm not with Michael Jones on everything. I disagree with his
claim that Richard went straight for the crown after Edward's death;
I don't agree that Richard's responsiblity for the Princes' deaths
can be assumed, and I still remain very sceptical about his new
battlesite (although it must be said it is not as far from the old
one as writers often give the impression).


>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 1/3/04 10:15:32 AM Mountain Standard Time,
smlark@... writes:


>
> Two standard deviations? That would depend on the distribution; e.g.
> Uniform, Normal or Poisson. However, a really low probabily of legitimacy would help
> to justify a DNA test. We had better also be careful with those bones after
> these revelations because the real princes would not be Richard of York's
> grandsons, therefore their mother or sister Elizabeth would be the best
> comparison.
> ?




I hadn't thought of it in any way except a "normal distribution."
Interesting question as to which distribution would be most appropriate.

If Edward wasn't the son of the Duke of York, then York's descendants would
only originate from daughters Anne and Elizabeth, and son George (Clarence)
and...? Richard III's line died out, Margaret of York had no children, Edmund
died at Wakefield, several children died at birth (or young). Did I overlook any?

LML,
Pam

At 03:03 PM 1/1/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
>
>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.

Well, for comparison we have Cecily Neville's grand-daughter Elizabeth, who
married Henry the VIIth on January 18th, 1486 and gave birth to Arthur
Tudor on September 20th of that year. By my calculations that's exactly 35
weeks from the wedding.

Based on Jones type of theorizing, that must be clear proof the Elizabeth
cuckolded Henry. Or perhaps that the family was prone to shorter than
average pregnancies.

Has anyone tracked the movements of the husbands of Cecily's sisters,
daughters, and grand-daughters to see if any of their pregnancies were a
bit on the short side?

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@c...> wrote:
> At 03:03 PM 1/1/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Well, for comparison we have Cecily Neville's grand-daughter
Elizabeth, who
> married Henry the VIIth on January 18th, 1486 and gave birth to
Arthur
> Tudor on September 20th of that year. By my calculations that's
exactly 35
> weeks from the wedding.
>
> Based on Jones type of theorizing, that must be clear proof the
Elizabeth
> cuckolded Henry. Or perhaps that the family was prone to shorter
than
> average pregnancies.

Not at all. Jones discusses that very pregnancy. Arthur it seems "was
too weak to travel with the royal entourage after his birth at
Winchester and had to be left for six months at Farnham Priory to be
nursed to recovery." And Arthur, of course, did not make old bones.
What we're looking for is shorter than average maturations - not a
tendancy to premature birth.
Nicholas Orme also relates the story of how the Earl of Oxford, one
of Arthur's intended godfathers, got there too late for the
christening even though they hung on as long as they could, which
also suggests the birth hadn't been expected so soon - so not
conceived before the marriage.
>
> Has anyone tracked the movements of the husbands of Cecily's
sisters,
> daughters, and grand-daughters to see if any of their pregnancies
were a
> bit on the short side?

How do you tell in the normal way? Actually, I'd better explain that
apparently the hormones that set off labour are produced by the
placenta, which is foetal tissue; so it is, if you like, the baby who
decides, not the mother. So that the tendency to be late or early is
actually determined by both maternal and paternal genes. An old
pregnancy book I read was written by a doctor who said he had often
seen a woman's delivery pattern change with a change of husband. And
then other things can set off labour too early - just from the top of
my head, trauma of some kind, a fever, or the failure of the placenta
(these things don't last for ever, and not infreqently fail before
they should). Also, toxaemia, which causes premature birth and also
puts the mother at risk, is much more common in a first pregnancy.
So it's complicated. Ever thought that trundling a pregnant queen
down to Winchester on Those Roads (and no springs and no pneumatic
tyres) might not have been a great idea?
For what it's worth, Anne of Exeter's birth date is unknown.
Elizabeth of Suffolk seems to have been "married" in 1458 (aged 14),
but Lincoln wasn't born until 1462 (when Elizabeth was 18). However,
there were also daughters whose birth years I don't have.
Margaret of Burgundy of course had no children.
And the next generation are too far removed to be useful as evidence.

As I said in my previous message, all we really have to go on are the
gaps between Cecily's children, none of which is short enough to
suggest an early delivery.
I think this is a blind alley. We can't prove Edward's paternity like
this; perhaps soon I'll be able to give you general statistics but
they probably won't saitisfy. So we have to look also at events, and
at primary documentary evidence, and see what seems to fit best. One
day, perhaps, DNA analysis. And of course hopefully anyone now
wanting to analyse The Bones will not try comparing them with Richard
Duke of York.

Marie

At 23:55 03/01/2004, you wrote:
>--- In , Ed Simons
><easimons@c...> wrote:
>
> > Based on Jones type of theorizing, that must be clear proof the
>Elizabeth
> > cuckolded Henry. Or perhaps that the family was prone to shorter
>than
> > average pregnancies.
>
>Not at all. Jones discusses that very pregnancy. Arthur it seems "was
>too weak to travel with the royal entourage after his birth at
>Winchester and had to be left for six months at Farnham Priory to be
>nursed to recovery." And Arthur, of course, did not make old bones.
>What we're looking for is shorter than average maturations - not a
>tendancy to premature birth.

Let's look at a later one. Winston Churchill. Parents married in April
1874, he born in November 1874. Not much fuss over him being a premature
baby, but due to the state of society at the time (and my source on this is
Anita Leslie, the granddaughter of his aunt Leonie), pretty much impossible
for his parents to be alone together for a sufficient period of time to
conceive a child before the wedding day.

No-one bats an eyelid about this. In a society that may not understand
childbirth as well, or even as well as the 19th century, we're talking
about a time period that's plausible, and may even be a bigger plus in
their eyes. If Richard is demonised for spending a patently impossible two
years in the womb, maybe his brother is to be lauded for being premature?

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
If Richard is demonised for spending a patently impossible two
> years in the womb, maybe his brother is to be lauded for being
premature?
>
> Jenny


Speaking of which -- More's nonsense about Richard being two years in
the womb -- I wonder if there is anything to it other than More
trying to demonize him. If, for instance, Cecily was known to be
pregnant before Richard and after uh...the one before him...but no
baby resulted, then along came Richard. A mid-trimester miscarriage
and then conceiving Richard is the obvious explanation, but someone
as knuckle-headed as More was about nature (it was big amazing news
to him that a newly hatched chick or gosling imprints on the first
moving object it sees and regards it as its mother) might think it
was all one overly-long pregnancy,

What is the interval between Richard and the preceding child? Long
enough for a miscarriage after noticeable pregnancy to fit in?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Jennifer Delaney
> <clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> If Richard is demonised for spending a patently impossible two
> > years in the womb, maybe his brother is to be lauded for being
> premature?
> >
> > Jenny
>
>
> Speaking of which -- More's nonsense about Richard being two years
in
> the womb -- I wonder if there is anything to it other than More
> trying to demonize him. If, for instance, Cecily was known to be
> pregnant before Richard and after uh...the one before him...but no
> baby resulted, then along came Richard. A mid-trimester
miscarriage
> and then conceiving Richard is the obvious explanation, but someone
> as knuckle-headed as More was about nature (it was big amazing news
> to him that a newly hatched chick or gosling imprints on the first
> moving object it sees and regards it as its mother) might think it
> was all one overly-long pregnancy,
>
> What is the interval between Richard and the preceding child? Long
> enough for a miscarriage after noticeable pregnancy to fit in?
>
> Katy

It was two years (almost). I actually suggested this explanation on
an earlier post. In fact it was Rous, not More, who said Richard was
born after 2-year pregnancy. More went for the breech birth version
of the unnatural arrival. I suspect Rous may have based this claim on
some tittle-tattle from his mistress the Countess of Warwick, who as
he tells us was very fond of attending ladies in childbirth.

To respond to Anne again on the date of arrival in Rouen. I swear
Jones did NOT say York was back in Rouen on 21st August. I was
listening particularly hard at that point and he said he was in
Pontoise until 21st. I don't know if that was precisely what he
meant, but it is what he said. And Pontoise was 73 miles away from
Rouen.
Since Jones' evidence appears to be based on this one entry in the
cathedral book praying for his safety, then I can only assume said
entry is dated 20th or 21st August.
Surely York would have re-entered Rouen in triumph at the head of
his troops (doing the same at other places along the way), in which
case it would not have been a very quick return. Certainly they
wouldn't have managed more than 20 miles a day - 15 might be more
realistic. So 4 to 5 days journey for York himself. And of course he
may not have set out absolutely instantly.

As regards our male lister's point about Churchill - I really don't
know, and I am not an obstetrician or a midwife, but I can assure him
that IF he was a full 2 months early then he would certainly have
been premature. Very underweight (babies do most of their weight gain
in last weeks), jaundiced (liver is last organ to mature and even
many full-term babies are a bit jaundiced) and perhaps with other
difficulties too. If he was born only 7 months after the marriage and
was big and bouncing then one would have to assume he was conceived
before the marriage. Don't be too naive about the period or about
people's opportunities. As it happens, my brother's just given my son
a biography of Churchill for Christmas so I'll ask the lad about it
when I can get hold of him.
But anyway this is more argument by curiosities. I don't know how
many times I have to repeat that 3-4 weeks early for a healthy baby
is not at all impossible but it is a lot less common than, say,
within a week or two of the due date! This really is the last time
(tear out hair).

And, as Tony Robinson said, it is an odd fact that the likeliest time
of conception happens to be bang in the middle of York's absence.

By the by, I do not think betrothal would have made Cecily Duchess of
York. So what took place in 1424 was a childhood marriage.
Canonically unsound, but not infrequently used by the nobility. There
would therefore, as I understand it, have been no second ceremony
when they were older, just bedding.

Marie

At 11:51 04/01/2004, you wrote:
>As regards our male lister's point about Churchill - I really don't
>know, and I am not an obstetrician or a midwife, but I can assure him
>that IF he was a full 2 months early then he would certainly have
>been premature. Very underweight (babies do most of their weight gain
>in last weeks), jaundiced (liver is last organ to mature and even
>many full-term babies are a bit jaundiced) and perhaps with other
>difficulties too. If he was born only 7 months after the marriage and
>was big and bouncing then one would have to assume he was conceived
>before the marriage. Don't be too naive about the period or about
>people's opportunities. As it happens, my brother's just given my son
>a biography of Churchill for Christmas so I'll ask the lad about it
>when I can get hold of him.


Hello,

a) not male.

b) not being naive. According to the family themselves, physically
impossible for anything to have happened. My point wasn't that Churchill
was an incredibly healthy baby, my point was that no-one seemed to panic
overly about a 7-months baby. Possibly due to high levels of infant
mortality and possible high levels of low birth weights, etc. I never said
that Churchill was a bouncing baby, I just said that no-one seemed to have
been hugely bothered by his prematureness to the extent that it caused gossip.

Jenny

My point wasn't that Churchill
> was an incredibly healthy baby, my point was that no-one seemed to
panic
> overly about a 7-months baby. Possibly due to high levels of infant
> mortality and possible high levels of low birth weights, etc. I
never said
> that Churchill was a bouncing baby, I just said that no-one seemed
to have
> been hugely bothered by his prematureness to the extent that it
caused gossip.
>

Jenny

Churchill's case was one which had also occurred to me. Is there any
suggestion that he was fragile as an infant? I understand that he was
only about 5ft 5, but he was remarkably robust as an adult (all that
brandy and cigars, and very healthy until in his 70s).


A near-contemporary of his was Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, elder
brother of George V. He was born on 8th January 1864, and is said to
have been two months premature (his birth followed a fall his mother
had while ice skating). By all accounts he was never very robust (he
died from influenza aged 28), and not very bright either, but this
was a seven-months child who did survive the hazards of infancy and
reach adulthood.

Ann

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 11:51 04/01/2004, you wrote:
> >As regards our male lister's point about Churchill - I really don't
> >know, and I am not an obstetrician or a midwife, but I can assure
him
> >that IF he was a full 2 months early then he would certainly have
> >been premature. Very underweight (babies do most of their weight
gain
> >in last weeks), jaundiced (liver is last organ to mature and even
> >many full-term babies are a bit jaundiced) and perhaps with other
> >difficulties too. If he was born only 7 months after the marriage
and
> >was big and bouncing then one would have to assume he was conceived
> >before the marriage. Don't be too naive about the period or about
> >people's opportunities. As it happens, my brother's just given my
son
> >a biography of Churchill for Christmas so I'll ask the lad about it
> >when I can get hold of him.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> a) not male.
>
> b) not being naive. According to the family themselves, physically
> impossible for anything to have happened. My point wasn't that
Churchill
> was an incredibly healthy baby, my point was that no-one seemed to
panic
> overly about a 7-months baby. Possibly due to high levels of infant
> mortality and possible high levels of low birth weights, etc. I
never said
> that Churchill was a bouncing baby, I just said that no-one seemed
to have
> been hugely bothered by his prematureness to the extent that it
caused gossip.
>
> Jenny

Sorry Jenny. I had only a vague remembrance of your tag. Churchill's
case of course doesn't affect Edward's, but I still find this one
odd. I can't help wondering why the family said publicly it was
impossible he was conceived before the marriage (certainly they would
not have admitted the opposite so it's a case of whether or not you
believe them). Sounds to me like the lady protesting too much again.
Certainly seems to suggest it did cause gossip.
I'm still waiting on getting hold of son, but I've found the
following on the web:
a) Jenny's mother tried to stop her seeing Randolph - there's a love
letter on the web written from him the previous year in which he
refers to days they had managed to be together; and
b) they were married in Paris.

Marie

At 17:25 04/01/2004, you wrote:
>Sorry Jenny. I had only a vague remembrance of your tag. Churchill's
>case of course doesn't affect Edward's, but I still find this one
>odd. I can't help wondering why the family said publicly it was
>impossible he was conceived before the marriage (certainly they would
>not have admitted the opposite so it's a case of whether or not you
>believe them). Sounds to me like the lady protesting too much again.
>Certainly seems to suggest it did cause gossip.


Gossip caused later on. My source is Leslie's book "Edwardians in Love" and
she uses Winston's birth as an example of (later, ie not contemporary)
gossip arising about something that was patently impossible - pre-marital
sex at that level of society was not only a massive no-no, but also because
of the level of chaperoning going on. While Randolph and Jennie would
probably have managed private conversation at a party, just the mere hint
of being found alone with a man was enough to ruin an unmarried girl's
reputation in those circles and the man was expected to do the decent thing
and marry her. Standing to one side and quietly talking while others were
around was fine, and they'd have had a certain amount of leeway once
engaged, without Mrs Jerome (for example) supervising their conversation,
while walking in public would also probably have been fine, but never going
anywhere that they could have conceivably indulged in some pre-marital sex.

Also, just found a Roy Jenkins piece that says that Winston was premature
for much the same reasons that the Princess of Wales' first child was at
the same time - Jennie had a fall that brought on early labour. The
surprising thing is that the baby appears to have been born healthy - of
course, at that time there was far less knowledge of how prematureness
affected children.

Jennie did cause gossip. Later on in life she had an affair with the Prince
of Wales. She also caused jealousy - she was one of the first American
heiresses to marry into the British aristocracy, and such heiresses were
not always popular in a society with a lot of daughters to dispose of
eligibly. Then to cap it all, she married a man who was the same age as her
son.

>I'm still waiting on getting hold of son, but I've found the
>following on the web:
>a) Jenny's mother tried to stop her seeing Randolph - there's a love
>letter on the web written from him the previous year in which he
>refers to days they had managed to be together; and
>b) they were married in Paris.

Old Jerome did move about a bit, and the family did have a house in Paris,
Jennie and her sisters having lived there for a number of years, hence the
British Embassy wedding.

As for Jennie's mother - Randolph was impetuous and a younger son in a
rather ramshackle family - both of which were reason enough for Mrs Jerome
to object to the engagement.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:

>
> Also, just found a Roy Jenkins piece that says that Winston was
premature
> for much the same reasons that the Princess of Wales' first child
was at
> the same time - Jennie had a fall that brought on early labour.

IIRC, Churchill was born very suddenly while Jennie Jerome was at a
ball. He was born in a cloakroom just off the ballroom. Since a
woman nine months pregnant rarely went to balls in those days, I
would he was quite premature.

Katy

Katy:
> IIRC, Churchill was born very suddenly while Jennie Jerome was at a
> ball. He was born in a cloakroom just off the ballroom. Since a
> woman nine months pregnant rarely went to balls in those days, I
> would he was quite premature.

Ann:
I've seen the room, which *is* tiny and just off the ballroom --
though she must surely have been staying in the house and you'd
really think that in a place the size of Blenheim they'd have had a
bedroom for her and could have carried her there! I suppose she
might have been one of those fabled women whose labor pains are so
slight they think they're indigestion or something of that sort?

The announcement appeared in the London Times on December 3, 1874:

"On the 30th Nov., at Blenheim Palace, the Lady Randolph Churchill,
prematurely, of a son." The word "prematurely" is mentioned!

FWIW, however, the standards of chaperonage in the 1870's for the
social circles these people moved in, were very restricted for
unmarried girls; until they were officially engaged, she'd presumably
have been allowed to receive him, and other male callers, in a
room ... with a chaperone in the next room, open door between.

At some time, Winston Churchill was asked about his premature
arrival ... his answer was that *he* had no recollection of it.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Ann Sharp <axsc@...> wrote:
Katy:
> IIRC, Churchill was born very suddenly while Jennie Jerome was at a
> ball. He was born in a cloakroom just off the ballroom. Since a
> woman nine months pregnant rarely went to balls in those days, I
> would he was quite premature.



I had heard of Churchill being premature but where did you hear the cloakroom story? I can remember a few years ago seeing a TV series about Jennie and it being announced they filmed Winston's birth in the actual bedroom he was born in. Nothing about a cloakroom.

I would had thought that in those days that even at seven months women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a delicate condition". Well rich women like Jennie, poorer women didn't have that choice. Though I think that Jennie Churchill wasn't always conventional and might had buck at that tradition.

Helen










---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

> Katy:
> > IIRC, Churchill was born very suddenly while Jennie Jerome was at
> > a ball. He was born in a cloakroom just off the ballroom.

Helen:
> I had heard of Churchill being premature but where did you hear the
cloakroom story? I can remember a few years ago seeing a TV series
about Jennie and it being announced they filmed Winston's birth in
the actual bedroom he was born in. Nothing about a cloakroom.

Ann:
It's a very small room on the ground floor of Blenheim. I
think "cloakroom" is probably an exaggeration, but I was surprised
that Jennie and Randolph hadn't been assigned rooms in the family
quarters on, say, an upper floor. Unless it would have been easier
for Jennie not to have to negotiate staircases? Or it might have
been easier to keep a small room comfortably warm in November?
Admittedly, "small" and "Blenheim" don't go well together.

>
> I would had thought that in those days that even at seven months
women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started
showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a
delicate condition". Well rich women like Jennie, poorer women didn't
have that choice. Though I think that Jennie Churchill wasn't always
conventional and might had buck at that tradition.


Ann:
Right, and in 1874 Jennie wasn't a matron with an assured social
position and several years of experience ... she was a new bride
having a honeymoon baby, and I'd have expected her to make an effort
to conform to traditional behavior. Winston's arrival has always
been considered a little odd!

At 05:34 05/01/2004, you wrote:

> > I would had thought that in those days that even at seven months
>women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started
>showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a
>delicate condition". Well rich women like Jennie, poorer women didn't
>have that choice. Though I think that Jennie Churchill wasn't always
>conventional and might had buck at that tradition.
>
>
>Ann:
>Right, and in 1874 Jennie wasn't a matron with an assured social
>position and several years of experience ... she was a new bride
>having a honeymoon baby, and I'd have expected her to make an effort
>to conform to traditional behavior. Winston's arrival has always
>been considered a little odd!

It might have been because the ball was at Blenheim. The Randolph
Churchills were staying there while they were waiting for their London
house to be ready. It might have been that Jennie was attending the ball
because it was happening in her home - after all, she didn't have to dance.
Her fall had been a couple of days earlier and she'd been out driving over
rough ground as well, which is what the labour was blamed on, but she was
clearly very fit for a upper-class 7-months pregnant woman of that era.

Jenny

> > > I would had thought that in those days that even at seven months
> >women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started
> >showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a
> >delicate condition".


In the same way I am surprised that the Princess of Wales was ice
skating when seven months pregnant. However, this was the future
Queen Alexandra, who was Danish, and perhaps more used to skating
than the average Anglo-Saxon. Incidentally, Albert Victor was born 10
months after the marriage, so there is no need for speculation that
he was conceived pre-honeymoon.

As to the Randolph Churchills marrying at the British Embassy in
Paris, I am vague on the precise details, but at that time I don't
think the current rule applied that a marriage concluded abroad is
valid under English law provided it is valid under the law of the
country concerned. A British embassy or consulate is legally British
territory (as is the embassy of any state), so any problems over the
validity of a marriage are dealt with very neatly by marrying at the
embassy. I can't quote statistics here, but the impression I have is
that it used to be quite usual for couples who married abroad to do
so at the embassy or consulate. Equally, under pre-1948 nationality
law, you needed to register the birth of a child born abroad at the
consulate so that he was entitled to British nationality. Given that
Lord Randolph was the son of a duke, and his elder brother then
unmarried, it was surely vital that there be no doubt about the
validity of his marriage and hence the legitimacy of his offspring.
(I find it very odd that no dispensation has been found for Richard
and Anne Neville's marriage, for just that reason!)

As to Warwick's doings in 1469-70, yes, it is possible that the
believed the illegitimacy tale and that was why he supported
Clarence. However, it does not follow that it was then
disillusionment with Clarence and his lack of kingly qualities then
caused him to throw in his lot with Lancaster. To decide that
Clarence is not worth the effort is one thing, but then to side with
Lancaster is another. To me it makes much better sense to work on the
basis that Warwick was only really interested in power for Warwick,
and by that stage it didn't really matter who he used as the tool of
his ambition.

Ann

--- In , "Ann Sharp"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Katy:
> > > IIRC, Churchill was born very suddenly while Jennie Jerome was
at
> > > a ball. He was born in a cloakroom just off the ballroom.
>
> Helen:
> > I had heard of Churchill being premature but where did you hear
the
> cloakroom story? I can remember a few years ago seeing a TV series
> about Jennie and it being announced they filmed Winston's birth in
> the actual bedroom he was born in. Nothing about a cloakroom.
>
> Ann:
> It's a very small room on the ground floor of Blenheim. I
> think "cloakroom" is probably an exaggeration, but I was surprised
> that Jennie and Randolph hadn't been assigned rooms in the family
> quarters on, say, an upper floor. Unless it would have been easier
> for Jennie not to have to negotiate staircases? Or it might have
> been easier to keep a small room comfortably warm in November?
> Admittedly, "small" and "Blenheim" don't go well together.
>
> >
> > I would had thought that in those days that even at seven months
> women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started
> showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a
> delicate condition". Well rich women like Jennie, poorer women
didn't
> have that choice. Though I think that Jennie Churchill wasn't
always
> conventional and might had buck at that tradition.
>
>
> Ann:
> Right, and in 1874 Jennie wasn't a matron with an assured social
> position and several years of experience ... she was a new bride
> having a honeymoon baby, and I'd have expected her to make an
effort
> to conform to traditional behavior. Winston's arrival has always
> been considered a little odd!

My thought was that she wasn't showing -- she was young, fashionably
very slim, and it was her first pregnancy, and as we mothers know,
you show more and earlier with subscquent pregnancies once your
abdominal muscles get stretched out, at least unless you work hard to
get your figure back, unlike us lesser mortals -- so she just went to
the Ball anyway becaue she didn't look pregnant and thought she could
get away with it.

I believe Winston's arrival was sudden -- precipitate delivery -- and
there wasn't time to get Jennie upstairs to a proper edroom.


Katy

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > I would had thought that in those days that even at seven
months
> > >women wouldn't be attending Balls and in fact once they started
> > >showing they quite retired from any sort of public life, in "a
> > >delicate condition".
>
>
> In the same way I am surprised that the Princess of Wales was ice
> skating when seven months pregnant. However, this was the future
> Queen Alexandra, who was Danish, and perhaps more used to skating
> than the average Anglo-Saxon. Incidentally, Albert Victor was born
10
> months after the marriage, so there is no need for speculation that
> he was conceived pre-honeymoon.
>
> As to the Randolph Churchills marrying at the British Embassy in
> Paris, I am vague on the precise details, but at that time I don't
> think the current rule applied that a marriage concluded abroad is
> valid under English law provided it is valid under the law of the
> country concerned. A British embassy or consulate is legally
British
> territory (as is the embassy of any state), so any problems over
the
> validity of a marriage are dealt with very neatly by marrying at
the
> embassy. I can't quote statistics here, but the impression I have
is
> that it used to be quite usual for couples who married abroad to do
> so at the embassy or consulate. Equally, under pre-1948 nationality
> law, you needed to register the birth of a child born abroad at the
> consulate so that he was entitled to British nationality. Given
that
> Lord Randolph was the son of a duke, and his elder brother then
> unmarried, it was surely vital that there be no doubt about the
> validity of his marriage and hence the legitimacy of his offspring.
> (I find it very odd that no dispensation has been found for Richard
> and Anne Neville's marriage, for just that reason!)

I think I'd twigged that. But I'm still unsure as to why they didn't
wait until the Jeromes had come to London for the summer season to
tie the knot.
>
> As to Warwick's doings in 1469-70, yes, it is possible that the
> believed the illegitimacy tale and that was why he supported
> Clarence. However, it does not follow that it was then
> disillusionment with Clarence and his lack of kingly qualities
then
> caused him to throw in his lot with Lancaster. To decide that
> Clarence is not worth the effort is one thing, but then to side
with
> Lancaster is another. To me it makes much better sense to work on
the
> basis that Warwick was only really interested in power for Warwick,
> and by that stage it didn't really matter who he used as the tool
of
> his ambition.

Just bear in mind that Warwick and his whole family were exiled in
France. A very precarious situation, with Louis also supporting the
exiled Lanvcastrians. He might have done a deal with Edward and sent
them back in chains at any time.

Marie
>