Who dunnit with the duchess
Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-01 21:02:15
I thoght I'd start a new thread, although it is merely a continuation
of the Michael Hastings one, because I have a slightly different
question:
If the Duke of York did not father Edward, any idea who might have?
I tend to be dubious about the rumored archer from/in Rouen because I
think that of all people who might catch the duchess's eye and have
opportunity to tryst alone with her, an archer is about the least
likely. It's hard to think of a scenario in which their paths might
even have crossed.
My thought is that the archer business is another example of how, if
you want to discredit someone of noble or royal blood, you say his
actual father was some tradesman or merchant, or in this case, an
archer...a valuable and specialized soldier, but archers were not
from the landed gentry.
I'm still puzzled by a fact that several of you have mentioned...the
Dukeand Cecily were married since she was a child, and one resumes
they started having relations when she became of of proper age
(which, if I recall correctly, by common law was age 14 or whenever
her menses started, whichever came first) yet her first child was not
born till she was what, 22, 23? Then she started having babies about
as fast as human physiology allows. I find that puzzling, so I had
to wonder...in view of all that, and of there being some reasonable
doubt as to who fathered Edward, were any of the other children also
catered, so to speak. Was the Duke of York the father of all the
other children, some of them, or even none of them? An absurd
question, no doubt, since there would be no point in continuing a
charade like that once an heir and a spare had been produced, so the
next eight children would have been superfluous and the only reason
for them would have been that the parents were in the habit of having
sex together and there was not much in the way of birth control.
Still, thequestion occurred to me.
I hadn't thought of the idea that Cecily's many babies and her
following the duke everywhere, even in late pregnancy, might have
been less a sign of devotion and love than a hint that he didn't
trust her unpregnant and out of his sight.
One thing I really like about this forum is the questions and
possibilites we explore.
Katy
Katy
of the Michael Hastings one, because I have a slightly different
question:
If the Duke of York did not father Edward, any idea who might have?
I tend to be dubious about the rumored archer from/in Rouen because I
think that of all people who might catch the duchess's eye and have
opportunity to tryst alone with her, an archer is about the least
likely. It's hard to think of a scenario in which their paths might
even have crossed.
My thought is that the archer business is another example of how, if
you want to discredit someone of noble or royal blood, you say his
actual father was some tradesman or merchant, or in this case, an
archer...a valuable and specialized soldier, but archers were not
from the landed gentry.
I'm still puzzled by a fact that several of you have mentioned...the
Dukeand Cecily were married since she was a child, and one resumes
they started having relations when she became of of proper age
(which, if I recall correctly, by common law was age 14 or whenever
her menses started, whichever came first) yet her first child was not
born till she was what, 22, 23? Then she started having babies about
as fast as human physiology allows. I find that puzzling, so I had
to wonder...in view of all that, and of there being some reasonable
doubt as to who fathered Edward, were any of the other children also
catered, so to speak. Was the Duke of York the father of all the
other children, some of them, or even none of them? An absurd
question, no doubt, since there would be no point in continuing a
charade like that once an heir and a spare had been produced, so the
next eight children would have been superfluous and the only reason
for them would have been that the parents were in the habit of having
sex together and there was not much in the way of birth control.
Still, thequestion occurred to me.
I hadn't thought of the idea that Cecily's many babies and her
following the duke everywhere, even in late pregnancy, might have
been less a sign of devotion and love than a hint that he didn't
trust her unpregnant and out of his sight.
One thing I really like about this forum is the questions and
possibilites we explore.
Katy
Katy
Re: Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-02 14:28:55
>
> My thought is that the archer business is another example of how,
if
> you want to discredit someone of noble or royal blood, you say
his
> actual father was some tradesman or merchant, or in this case, an
> archer...a valuable and specialized soldier, but archers were not
> from the landed gentry.
Katy:
This is another reason for my reservations.
>
> I'm still puzzled by a fact that several of you have
mentioned...the
> Dukeand Cecily were married since she was a child, and one resumes
> they started having relations when she became of of proper age
> (which, if I recall correctly, by common law was age 14 or
whenever
> her menses started, whichever came first) yet her first child was
not
> born till she was what, 22, 23? Then she started having babies
about
> as fast as human physiology allows.
I'm still away from home so don't have the book to hand, but
Margaret Wade Labarge in 'Medieval Women' quotes someone else's
research on aristocratic women who married young, and concludes that
the typical age for producing the first child was not 14-15, as the
point about proper age might suggest, but 17-18. This in turn
suggests that either girls tended to mature later than today, so
that they were incapable of conceiving until about 17, or husbands
waited to consummate their marriages until it was clear that their
wives were mature enough to bear children in relative safety (or
indeed a bit of both). Margaret Beaufort was apparently most unusual
in having Henry Tudor at 13, but she never had another child despite
two further marriages (and Thomas Stanley having a quiverful from
his first marriage), suggesting that she may well have been damaged
in some way. Antonia Fraser makes a similar point in 'The
Six Wives of Henry VIII' in discussing whether the marriage of
Arthur Tudor and Catherine of Aragon was actually consummated.
If we work on the basis that Cecily Neville's marriage was
unconsummated until she was 17ish, or she was physically incapable
of conceiving until then, it cuts down the 'gap' before the arrival
of the first child quite considerably. Apologies for using an
example from my own family again, but my maternal grandparents
married in August 1919 on my grandfather's return from the First
World War. Their first live child was not born until September 1923;
in between there was a stillbirth and one or more miscarriages. Then
four healthy offspring in six years, the first two 363 days apart
(breast feeding is not to be relied on as a contraceptive!), then a
gap, then two more fairly close together. My grandmother was nearly
40 when the last was born; perhaps if they had started earlier the
four might have been many more.
Do we have much information about the movements of York and Cecily
before 1437? Perhaps it was only later that she chose to go with him
everywhere? If they were separated a good deal at this time, this
would cut down the chances of issue quite considerably, and a
miscarriage or two would account for the rest of the gap.
Ann
> My thought is that the archer business is another example of how,
if
> you want to discredit someone of noble or royal blood, you say
his
> actual father was some tradesman or merchant, or in this case, an
> archer...a valuable and specialized soldier, but archers were not
> from the landed gentry.
Katy:
This is another reason for my reservations.
>
> I'm still puzzled by a fact that several of you have
mentioned...the
> Dukeand Cecily were married since she was a child, and one resumes
> they started having relations when she became of of proper age
> (which, if I recall correctly, by common law was age 14 or
whenever
> her menses started, whichever came first) yet her first child was
not
> born till she was what, 22, 23? Then she started having babies
about
> as fast as human physiology allows.
I'm still away from home so don't have the book to hand, but
Margaret Wade Labarge in 'Medieval Women' quotes someone else's
research on aristocratic women who married young, and concludes that
the typical age for producing the first child was not 14-15, as the
point about proper age might suggest, but 17-18. This in turn
suggests that either girls tended to mature later than today, so
that they were incapable of conceiving until about 17, or husbands
waited to consummate their marriages until it was clear that their
wives were mature enough to bear children in relative safety (or
indeed a bit of both). Margaret Beaufort was apparently most unusual
in having Henry Tudor at 13, but she never had another child despite
two further marriages (and Thomas Stanley having a quiverful from
his first marriage), suggesting that she may well have been damaged
in some way. Antonia Fraser makes a similar point in 'The
Six Wives of Henry VIII' in discussing whether the marriage of
Arthur Tudor and Catherine of Aragon was actually consummated.
If we work on the basis that Cecily Neville's marriage was
unconsummated until she was 17ish, or she was physically incapable
of conceiving until then, it cuts down the 'gap' before the arrival
of the first child quite considerably. Apologies for using an
example from my own family again, but my maternal grandparents
married in August 1919 on my grandfather's return from the First
World War. Their first live child was not born until September 1923;
in between there was a stillbirth and one or more miscarriages. Then
four healthy offspring in six years, the first two 363 days apart
(breast feeding is not to be relied on as a contraceptive!), then a
gap, then two more fairly close together. My grandmother was nearly
40 when the last was born; perhaps if they had started earlier the
four might have been many more.
Do we have much information about the movements of York and Cecily
before 1437? Perhaps it was only later that she chose to go with him
everywhere? If they were separated a good deal at this time, this
would cut down the chances of issue quite considerably, and a
miscarriage or two would account for the rest of the gap.
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-02 15:12:44
Well, I know there is mixed opinions on this, but I honestly believe that Edward was son of Richard Duke of York.
(I know this has been brought up, please bear with me) It just seems odd that The Duke would take no action if he actually thought Edward wasn't his. If it was as obvious to everyone that Cecily hadn't been faithful and this child was fathered by some other man, it would make him a laughing stock. I seriously doubt that he would just accept this and Edward. What man of this era did? (Other than a few men such as Llewellyn Fawr and there was no child born of his wifes infidelity) A situation such as this would have the potential to ruin the reputation and undermine all authority of The Duke and I can't see him not minding.
Everything I've read about the relationship between Richard and Cecily would point to the fact they were a very loving couple. Of course, we will never know for sure. Maybe it's just the romantic in me but I'd like to believe that they managed to find love in a politically motivated marriage.
Lastly, on the point of Cecilys fertility: Awhile back I read a study concerning this. (Forgive me if I get this all wrong) I believe it said that even though a girl begins menstruating at a young age, her body knows that physically she is not ready to carry a child and in it's own way will protect her from the potential harms of childbirth by not allowing her to conceive....(Like I said, it's been awhile since I've seen this, forgive me if I've gotten this all twisted!)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
(I know this has been brought up, please bear with me) It just seems odd that The Duke would take no action if he actually thought Edward wasn't his. If it was as obvious to everyone that Cecily hadn't been faithful and this child was fathered by some other man, it would make him a laughing stock. I seriously doubt that he would just accept this and Edward. What man of this era did? (Other than a few men such as Llewellyn Fawr and there was no child born of his wifes infidelity) A situation such as this would have the potential to ruin the reputation and undermine all authority of The Duke and I can't see him not minding.
Everything I've read about the relationship between Richard and Cecily would point to the fact they were a very loving couple. Of course, we will never know for sure. Maybe it's just the romantic in me but I'd like to believe that they managed to find love in a politically motivated marriage.
Lastly, on the point of Cecilys fertility: Awhile back I read a study concerning this. (Forgive me if I get this all wrong) I believe it said that even though a girl begins menstruating at a young age, her body knows that physically she is not ready to carry a child and in it's own way will protect her from the potential harms of childbirth by not allowing her to conceive....(Like I said, it's been awhile since I've seen this, forgive me if I've gotten this all twisted!)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-02 16:45:41
--- In , Anna Noel
<auntiesocial2001@y...> wrote:
>
> Well, I know there is mixed opinions on this, but I honestly
believe that Edward was son of Richard Duke of York.
>
> (I know this has been brought up, please bear with me) It just
seems odd that The Duke would take no action if he actually thought
Edward wasn't his. If it was as obvious to everyone that Cecily
hadn't been faithful and this child was fathered by some other man,
it would make him a laughing stock. I seriously doubt that he would
just accept this and Edward. What man of this era did? (Other than
a few men such as Llewellyn Fawr and there was no child born of his
wifes infidelity) A situation such as this would have the potential
to ruin the reputation and undermine all authority of The Duke and I
can't see him not minding.
I'm not sure it was obvious to everyone; this is an assumption I
don't share. The men were away at Pontoise, and Cecily may have been
very discreet. Also, the men serving with York in Normandy were his
people - on his side - and would not have wanted to undermine his
position like that.
ANYWAY, I don't know that there is any contemporary mention of this
extant before the late 1460s (didn't someone already make this
point?). So it may have been Cecily's own outburst after Edward's
marriage, as reported by Mancini, which first let the cat out of the
bag publicly. So this does not seem to me to be the insurmountable
obstacle that others obviously feel it to be. What would have
undermined the Duke's position and reputation would have been to tell
everyone he had been cuckolded. No child he produced afterwards (by
any wife) would ever be accepted without jibes and innuendoes.
Marie
>
> Everything I've read about the relationship between Richard and
Cecily would point to the fact they were a very loving couple. Of
course, we will never know for sure. Maybe it's just the romantic in
me but I'd like to believe that they managed to find love in a
politically motivated marriage.
>
> Lastly, on the point of Cecilys fertility: Awhile back I read a
study concerning this. (Forgive me if I get this all wrong) I
believe it said that even though a girl begins menstruating at a
young age, her body knows that physically she is not ready to carry a
child and in it's own way will protect her from the potential harms
of childbirth by not allowing her to conceive....(Like I said, it's
been awhile since I've seen this, forgive me if I've gotten this all
twisted!)
Yes, but 23 is still fairly old. I don't believe medieval noblewomen
are likely to have reached puberty late - they had a lot of animal
protein in their diets. Also, the legal age of consent - 12 for a
girl, 13 for a boy - gives a fair indication that the average age of
puberty was as it is now. That girls typically married, or
consummated marriages, at 15 to 17 as quoted on recent message is the
impression I always had. By then they are more physically mature -
pelvises mnore fully developed etc. So Cecily is likely to have
started periods at around 12, and consummated her marriage at about
16 - if the couple did things the normal way. Which leaves a 7-year
gap before her first baby, which is a bit long for a couple of
miscarriages. Also, we know about all Cecily's infant deaths, and
there were none in this period.
Is it possible that York was actually trying to get out of the
marriage - quietly get an annulment - and completely failed? If so,
this would certainly preclude him considering that option again after
Edward's birth. Speculation, but isn't all of this?
Marie
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
>
>
<auntiesocial2001@y...> wrote:
>
> Well, I know there is mixed opinions on this, but I honestly
believe that Edward was son of Richard Duke of York.
>
> (I know this has been brought up, please bear with me) It just
seems odd that The Duke would take no action if he actually thought
Edward wasn't his. If it was as obvious to everyone that Cecily
hadn't been faithful and this child was fathered by some other man,
it would make him a laughing stock. I seriously doubt that he would
just accept this and Edward. What man of this era did? (Other than
a few men such as Llewellyn Fawr and there was no child born of his
wifes infidelity) A situation such as this would have the potential
to ruin the reputation and undermine all authority of The Duke and I
can't see him not minding.
I'm not sure it was obvious to everyone; this is an assumption I
don't share. The men were away at Pontoise, and Cecily may have been
very discreet. Also, the men serving with York in Normandy were his
people - on his side - and would not have wanted to undermine his
position like that.
ANYWAY, I don't know that there is any contemporary mention of this
extant before the late 1460s (didn't someone already make this
point?). So it may have been Cecily's own outburst after Edward's
marriage, as reported by Mancini, which first let the cat out of the
bag publicly. So this does not seem to me to be the insurmountable
obstacle that others obviously feel it to be. What would have
undermined the Duke's position and reputation would have been to tell
everyone he had been cuckolded. No child he produced afterwards (by
any wife) would ever be accepted without jibes and innuendoes.
Marie
>
> Everything I've read about the relationship between Richard and
Cecily would point to the fact they were a very loving couple. Of
course, we will never know for sure. Maybe it's just the romantic in
me but I'd like to believe that they managed to find love in a
politically motivated marriage.
>
> Lastly, on the point of Cecilys fertility: Awhile back I read a
study concerning this. (Forgive me if I get this all wrong) I
believe it said that even though a girl begins menstruating at a
young age, her body knows that physically she is not ready to carry a
child and in it's own way will protect her from the potential harms
of childbirth by not allowing her to conceive....(Like I said, it's
been awhile since I've seen this, forgive me if I've gotten this all
twisted!)
Yes, but 23 is still fairly old. I don't believe medieval noblewomen
are likely to have reached puberty late - they had a lot of animal
protein in their diets. Also, the legal age of consent - 12 for a
girl, 13 for a boy - gives a fair indication that the average age of
puberty was as it is now. That girls typically married, or
consummated marriages, at 15 to 17 as quoted on recent message is the
impression I always had. By then they are more physically mature -
pelvises mnore fully developed etc. So Cecily is likely to have
started periods at around 12, and consummated her marriage at about
16 - if the couple did things the normal way. Which leaves a 7-year
gap before her first baby, which is a bit long for a couple of
miscarriages. Also, we know about all Cecily's infant deaths, and
there were none in this period.
Is it possible that York was actually trying to get out of the
marriage - quietly get an annulment - and completely failed? If so,
this would certainly preclude him considering that option again after
Edward's birth. Speculation, but isn't all of this?
Marie
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-09 01:38:55
It may well be possible but there is no evidence to suggest it - their early
betrothal does make it seem that there is a very long gap between it and the
birth of their first recorded child (Anne in 1439 if you accept her rather
than the daughter listed for 1438 in some sources) - however their early
betrothal doesn't necessarily mean they were bedded once Cecily hit her mid
to late teens - it is quite possible that they didn't infact get into bed
until the mid 1430's - dates of 1430 and 1438 have been given in some
sources for an actual marriage and given the Duke's constant movements the
later date is probably more likely which narrows the gap some what -
reference to her as his wife prior to that date is merely the result of
their formal betrothal and doesn't mean that they'd consummated the
marriage. Nor is that delay necessarily evidence of a rift or a wish on
Richard's behalf to have the betrothal rescinded - whilst arguably the
youngest daughter of a Northern Earl isn't the greatest catch for the Duke
of York her connections by the 1430's were pretty strong - he'd have had to
find a pretty good heiress to give him the political connections provided by
his Neville relations - two Duke's (Buckingham and Norfolk) and a handful of
Earl's.
Incidentally some comments regarding their relationship have mentioned her
extravagance and the fact that Richard appointed someone to keep an eye on
her accounts - that didn't occur until after Edward's birth in the early
1440's.
> Is it possible that York was actually trying to get out of the
> marriage - quietly get an annulment - and completely failed? If so,
> this would certainly preclude him considering that option again after
> Edward's birth. Speculation, but isn't all of this?
>
> Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
betrothal does make it seem that there is a very long gap between it and the
birth of their first recorded child (Anne in 1439 if you accept her rather
than the daughter listed for 1438 in some sources) - however their early
betrothal doesn't necessarily mean they were bedded once Cecily hit her mid
to late teens - it is quite possible that they didn't infact get into bed
until the mid 1430's - dates of 1430 and 1438 have been given in some
sources for an actual marriage and given the Duke's constant movements the
later date is probably more likely which narrows the gap some what -
reference to her as his wife prior to that date is merely the result of
their formal betrothal and doesn't mean that they'd consummated the
marriage. Nor is that delay necessarily evidence of a rift or a wish on
Richard's behalf to have the betrothal rescinded - whilst arguably the
youngest daughter of a Northern Earl isn't the greatest catch for the Duke
of York her connections by the 1430's were pretty strong - he'd have had to
find a pretty good heiress to give him the political connections provided by
his Neville relations - two Duke's (Buckingham and Norfolk) and a handful of
Earl's.
Incidentally some comments regarding their relationship have mentioned her
extravagance and the fact that Richard appointed someone to keep an eye on
her accounts - that didn't occur until after Edward's birth in the early
1440's.
> Is it possible that York was actually trying to get out of the
> marriage - quietly get an annulment - and completely failed? If so,
> this would certainly preclude him considering that option again after
> Edward's birth. Speculation, but isn't all of this?
>
> Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Who dunnit with the duchess
2004-01-09 02:29:46
--- In , "Tim Dale"
<tmc_dale@y...> wrote:
> It may well be possible but there is no evidence to suggest it -
their early
> betrothal does make it seem that there is a very long gap between
it and the
> birth of their first recorded child (Anne in 1439 if you accept her
rather
> than the daughter listed for 1438 in some sources) - however their
early
> betrothal doesn't necessarily mean they were bedded once Cecily hit
her mid
> to late teens - it is quite possible that they didn't infact get
into bed
> until the mid 1430's - dates of 1430 and 1438 have been given in
some
> sources for an actual marriage and given the Duke's constant
movements the
> later date is probably more likely which narrows the gap some what -
> reference to her as his wife prior to that date is merely the
result of
> their formal betrothal and doesn't mean that they'd consummated the
> marriage. Nor is that delay necessarily evidence of a rift or a
wish on
> Richard's behalf to have the betrothal rescinded - whilst arguably
the
> youngest daughter of a Northern Earl isn't the greatest catch for
the Duke
> of York her connections by the 1430's were pretty strong - he'd
have had to
> find a pretty good heiress to give him the political connections
provided by
> his Neville relations - two Duke's (Buckingham and Norfolk) and a
handful of
> Earl's.
>
> Incidentally some comments regarding their relationship have
mentioned her
> extravagance and the fact that Richard appointed someone to keep an
eye on
> her accounts - that didn't occur until after Edward's birth in the
early
> 1440's.
>
I would think that it would be important for the Duke of York to
demonstrate his wealth and prestige, if only to compare favorably to
or outshine other free-spending noble such as Warwick and, thouhgh
later, Buckingham.
Katy
<tmc_dale@y...> wrote:
> It may well be possible but there is no evidence to suggest it -
their early
> betrothal does make it seem that there is a very long gap between
it and the
> birth of their first recorded child (Anne in 1439 if you accept her
rather
> than the daughter listed for 1438 in some sources) - however their
early
> betrothal doesn't necessarily mean they were bedded once Cecily hit
her mid
> to late teens - it is quite possible that they didn't infact get
into bed
> until the mid 1430's - dates of 1430 and 1438 have been given in
some
> sources for an actual marriage and given the Duke's constant
movements the
> later date is probably more likely which narrows the gap some what -
> reference to her as his wife prior to that date is merely the
result of
> their formal betrothal and doesn't mean that they'd consummated the
> marriage. Nor is that delay necessarily evidence of a rift or a
wish on
> Richard's behalf to have the betrothal rescinded - whilst arguably
the
> youngest daughter of a Northern Earl isn't the greatest catch for
the Duke
> of York her connections by the 1430's were pretty strong - he'd
have had to
> find a pretty good heiress to give him the political connections
provided by
> his Neville relations - two Duke's (Buckingham and Norfolk) and a
handful of
> Earl's.
>
> Incidentally some comments regarding their relationship have
mentioned her
> extravagance and the fact that Richard appointed someone to keep an
eye on
> her accounts - that didn't occur until after Edward's birth in the
early
> 1440's.
>
I would think that it would be important for the Duke of York to
demonstrate his wealth and prestige, if only to compare favorably to
or outshine other free-spending noble such as Warwick and, thouhgh
later, Buckingham.
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.