Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette? She can't have been his wife's only lady in waiting. She was 72, well-married to a Bristol merchant and an heiress in her own right.
Was it because her son was Attorney General to Edward Prince of Wales and he felt she'd been asked to do it by the Woodvilles?
And how much did Stillington know?
He is likely to have known the Twynyhos through the Chokkes, who were the guardians of his grand-daughter Lucy Hampton and through the Cheddars (sorry!) who were like the Twynyhos, members of the Bristol merchant class.
Was this when he could have gone over to the dark side (Morton was a deacon of Wells at this point)?
Was his motivation as much a revenge for Ankarette (although Edward had apologised) as much as setting the record straight for Eleanor?
One might say Stillington wasn't personally well-rewarded by H7 but his nephew Richard Nyke was - and I can't find a birth for him anywhere, although he was supposed to have been born in Somerset. (Perhaps Nyke is a corruption of Wyke, which is where the Newton/Cheddars lived?)
Yet another tangled web.

Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?

I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


 

Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?

I wanna know exactly what went on and I wanna know now!!

Hilary...you have done well to find out Ankarrette's age...72...and her son. Makes her seem more human. Why does so much connected with Richard's life have to be a mystery...? eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

And I've just found out from a random search of the web that John Twynyho was named by one Rawlcliffe (?) as a retainer of Buckingham!!!?? The writer did not realise he was Ankarette's son - thought he might be a distant relative.
 
I wanna know too!!


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


 

I wanna know exactly what went on and I wanna know now!!

Hilary...you have done well to find out Ankarrette's age...72...and her son. Makes her seem more human. Why does so much connected with Richard's life have to be a mystery...? eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK< I have run into Ankarette, but not made a study of her. So, where should I go to check on this babe? Also someone gave me a book title for British business, guilds, etc. 15th C thru 17th. I thought I ordered it, but Amazon claims I have not. And, obviously, I have forgotten title, authors etc.
Thanks


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)



And I've just found out from a random search of the web that John Twynyho was named by one Rawlcliffe (?) as a retainer of Buckingham!!!?? The writer did not realise he was Ankarette's son - thought he might be a distant relative.

I wanna know too!!


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)




I wanna know exactly what went on and I wanna know now!!

Hilary...you have done well to find out Ankarrette's age...72...and her son. Makes her seem more human. Why does so much connected with Richard's life have to be a mystery...? eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
> Â
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ankarette is quite elusive to chase. There is a lot of misinformation on the web but there is consensus that her maiden name was Hawkeston and that she came from Shropshire, as did son John's wife, who was a Corbet from Morton Corbet (near Oswestry). She inherited lands on the Welsh borders. The Twynyhos were (like the Cheddars - ouch) wealthy Bristol merchants, lived in Frome Somerset and left several wills. If you put all these Somerset places on a map, including Bath and Wells and Farleigh Hungerford (Clarence's pad), you'll see that they were all quite near. Ankarette's grandchildren Margery and Christopher became Abbess and Dean of Shaftesbury Abbey in the late 1490s.
 
The title you ordered was probably British Towns in Transition by Clark and Slack.  Hope this helps.    


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 17:39
Subject: RE: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

OK< I have run into Ankarette, but not made a study of her. So, where should I go to check on this babe? Also someone gave me a book title for British business, guilds, etc. 15th C thru 17th. I thought I ordered it, but Amazon claims I have not. And, obviously, I have forgotten title, authors etc.
Thanks


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)



And I've just found out from a random search of the web that John Twynyho was named by one Rawlcliffe (?) as a retainer of Buckingham!!!?? The writer did not realise he was Ankarette's son - thought he might be a distant relative.

I wanna know too!!


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)




I wanna know exactly what went on and I wanna know now!!

Hilary...you have done well to find out Ankarrette's age...72...and her son. Makes her seem more human. Why does so much connected with Richard's life have to be a mystery...? eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
> Â
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.

Oh how I wish I knew!
 
There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
 
Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


 

I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.

I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.

Sheffe 



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:24 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>
> 
>Oh how I wish I knew!
> 
>There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
> 
>Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
>Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
> 
>
>I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
>She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes....but why? eileen

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.
>
> Sheffe 
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:24 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Oh how I wish I knew!
> > 
> >There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
> > 
> >Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
> >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
> >She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen
> >
> >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Good question Eileen, " are we too quick to assume Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers". After reading all the speculation on this forum over the last few months would we be wrong to wonder if Clarence was telling the truth. Did Ankarette Twynho kill Isabel and her son? Or was George just paranoid because he had to send his son abroad because Edward had threatened him? A few years ago I might have said that there's no way that Edward would do something like that but after reading JAH's "Eleanor" book I might not be of the same opinion. Who knows, women often died in or after childbirth so we would never be able to prove it but in view of all the other things that happened in those days it could be a possibility.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette? She can't have been his wife's only lady in waiting. She was 72, well-married to a Bristol merchant and an heiress in her own right.
>[snip]
> And how much did Stillington know?
> He is likely to have known the Twynyhos through the Chokkes, who were the guardians of his grand-daughter Lucy Hampton and through the Cheddars (sorry!) who were like the Twynyhos, members of the Bristol merchant class.
> Was this when he could have gone over to the dark side (Morton was a deacon of Wells at this point)? [snip]

Carol responds:

For reasons I've already stated, in particular the acceptance by the Three Estates and then Parliament of Stillington's evidence and Stillington's subsequent support of the Simnel rebellion, I think you've prematurely convinced yourself that there was no precontract. I remain certain that it was quite real.

Regarding Ankarette Twynyho, one theory (which makes sense to me) is that she was one of Isabel's midwives, probably the one in charge of the birth.

Carol

Yes, exactly Eileen and we have always just accepted it.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes....but why? eileen
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.
> >
> > Sheffe 
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > >To: "" <>
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:24 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Oh how I wish I knew!
> > > 
> > >There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
> > > 
> > >Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
> > >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
> > >She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen
> > >
> > >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

I always thought that Isobel gave birth to her baby in Tewkesbury Abbey Infirmary...and afterward still very ill taken back to Warwick Castle.....? eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette? She can't have been his wife's only lady in waiting. She was 72, well-married to a Bristol merchant and an heiress in her own right.
> >[snip]
> > And how much did Stillington know?
> > He is likely to have known the Twynyhos through the Chokkes, who were the guardians of his grand-daughter Lucy Hampton and through the Cheddars (sorry!) who were like the Twynyhos, members of the Bristol merchant class.
> > Was this when he could have gone over to the dark side (Morton was a deacon of Wells at this point)? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For reasons I've already stated, in particular the acceptance by the Three Estates and then Parliament of Stillington's evidence and Stillington's subsequent support of the Simnel rebellion, I think you've prematurely convinced yourself that there was no precontract. I remain certain that it was quite real.
>
> Regarding Ankarette Twynyho, one theory (which makes sense to me) is that she was one of Isabel's midwives, probably the one in charge of the birth.
>
> Carol
>

I mean, he must have had some reasoning behind that act...surely it just didnt pop into his head out of the blue....very very strange....OT but they used to say Princess Diana was paranoid when she insisted she was being bugged...funnily she was...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, exactly Eileen and we have always just accepted it.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes....but why? eileen
> >
> > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.
> > >
> > > Sheffe 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > >To: "" <>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:24 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >Oh how I wish I knew!
> > > > 
> > > >There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
> > > > 
> > > >Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > >From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > >To:
> > > >Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
> > > >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
> > > >She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen
> > > >
> > > >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.

Or drunk. Whether he was really drowned in malmsy or not the implication of
that method of execution (rumoured or real) is that George was a drinking
man. Unless you were a hermit who lived by a pure stream *everybody* drank
alcohol all the time, because the water wasn't safe, so the incidence of
outright alcoholism must have been quite high. Maybe Isabel's death caused
George to go on such a protracted bender that he started having delirium
tremens.

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:30 PM
Subject: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and
Clarence (not genealogy)


> Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette? She can't have been
> his wife's only lady in waiting.

Maybe she really did something which George interpreted as poisoning - she
might have tried some folk remedy on Isabel or the baby which didn't work
and which George thought (rightly or wrongly) had contributed to her death.

I haven't pre-convinced myself of anything - it is one of several scenarios. The acceptance of the Three Estates and Parliament doesn't mean it was all true. Stillington could have been persuaded to make his statement by who knows ....?  And it could have been true.  If Ankarette (at 72)  was a midwife, then several could have been charged with giving Isabel a drink which had repercussions three months down the line. Why Ankarette?
 
For what it's worth I don't think Richard had any knowledge of any of this, whoever, whatever. He was a victim, and that suited certain people who were out to destroy the Yorkist dynasty by whatever means.
 
We really do have to look outside the normally accepted texts or we will never get anywhere.  Just my opinion. H 
 
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 20:41
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

Hilary wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette? She can't have been his wife's only lady in waiting. She was 72, well-married to a Bristol merchant and an heiress in her own right.
>[snip]
> And how much did Stillington know?
> He is likely to have known the Twynyhos through the Chokkes, who were the guardians of his grand-daughter Lucy Hampton and through the Cheddars (sorry!) who were like the Twynyhos, members of the Bristol merchant class.
> Was this when he could have gone over to the dark side (Morton was a deacon of Wells at this point)? [snip]

Carol responds:

For reasons I've already stated, in particular the acceptance by the Three Estates and then Parliament of Stillington's evidence and Stillington's subsequent support of the Simnel rebellion, I think you've prematurely convinced yourself that there was no precontract. I remain certain that it was quite real.

Regarding Ankarette Twynyho, one theory (which makes sense to me) is that she was one of Isabel's midwives, probably the one in charge of the birth.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I haven't pre-convinced myself of anything - it is one of several scenarios. The acceptance of the Three Estates and Parliament doesn't mean it was all true. Stillington could have been persuaded to make his statement by who knows ....?  And it could have been true.  If Ankarette (at 72)  was a midwife, then several could have been charged with giving Isabel a drink which had repercussions three months down the line. Why Ankarette?
>  
> For what it's worth I don't think Richard had any knowledge of any of this, whoever, whatever. He was a victim, and that suited certain people who were out to destroy the Yorkist dynasty by whatever means.
>  
> We really do have to look outside the normally accepted texts or we will never get anywhere.  Just my opinion. H 

Carol responds:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. It just seems to me that Stillington's connections are solidly Yorkist and that Edward (despite making him swear an oath of allegiance to his son Edward, which may have been simply routine, imprisoning him at least once and pardoning him at least twice), trusted him enough to send him on a multitude of missions. I can easily see him switching his (true) allegiance to George or later Richard if he knew about the precontract or actually performed the marriage (indications do still point in that direction) but not switching allegiance to the Tudor, who arrested him twice and against whom he rebelled. (He did participate in Henry's coronation as well as Richard's, but Henry may have been trying to put all memory of Titulus Regius behind him. He also extended a peace offering to John of Lincoln, who also later rebelled against him.)

It does seem clear that George, who made a show of not drinking wine from Edward's table for fear that it was poisoned, still trusted Richard. He named the little son who died after him. Without question, Richard was the victim of people who wanted to destroy the Yorkist dynasty in general and him in particular. I just don't think that Stillington was one of them. But just as Annette is exploring the possibility that Anthony, Earl Rivers was part of a conspiracy to poison Edward IV, strange as that seems when we first encounter the idea, it's worth exploring the possibility that Isabel was really poisoned (and George wasn't paranoid). I've heard but have no idea whether it's true that Ankarette was "lent" to Isabel by Elizabeth Woodville, but I can't see Isabel accepting such an offer given the Woodville family's know antipathy to George.

Anyway, I hope the link to the Stillington itinerary I provided isn't redundant. At least. it provides sources for the various commissions, pardons, debts, etc. (including one to Rous--or Rous owed him money, I can't figure out which).

Carol

Carol, I'm not offended. I honestly don't know who, why, when any longer. As for Stillington I don't know either. It seems to me that a lot of these people were out for their own ends. I have a number of scenarios:
 
1) Stillington performed the 'marriage' of Edward and Eleanor, told George circa 1477, George told Edward and Stillington ended up in the Tower to cool his heals. But who encouraged him to tell George?
 
2) Stillington, with his insight /relationship into the Talbot/Barre/Catesby links knew that Edward had had a fling with Eleanor in the early 1460s and was persuaded by someone (who?) to come clean with a bit of exaggeration in 1483. That would effectiively de-stabilise an already de-stablised Yorkist monarchy
 
3) The pre-contract had been known to Catesby (whose family had served the Beauchamps since pre 1400) and he pressurised Stillington to come forward to defend the reputation of Eleanor. But why? Humphrey Talbot seems like one who goes with the flow (and left MB gifts in his will) and Elizabeth Mowbray had little to gain
 
4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and promised to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7 who eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.
 
 
I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are other scenarios. What I am sure of is that Richard knew nothing of any of this and was truly a victim, whatever way you look at it.
 
Cheers H 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 22:41
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I haven't pre-convinced myself of anything - it is one of several scenarios. The acceptance of the Three Estates and Parliament doesn't mean it was all true. Stillington could have been persuaded to make his statement by who knows ....?  And it could have been true.  If Ankarette (at 72)  was a midwife, then several could have been charged with giving Isabel a drink which had repercussions three months down the line. Why Ankarette?
>  
> For what it's worth I don't think Richard had any knowledge of any of this, whoever, whatever. He was a victim, and that suited certain people who were out to destroy the Yorkist dynasty by whatever means.
>  
> We really do have to look outside the normally accepted texts or we will never get anywhere.  Just my opinion. H 

Carol responds:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. It just seems to me that Stillington's connections are solidly Yorkist and that Edward (despite making him swear an oath of allegiance to his son Edward, which may have been simply routine, imprisoning him at least once and pardoning him at least twice), trusted him enough to send him on a multitude of missions. I can easily see him switching his (true) allegiance to George or later Richard if he knew about the precontract or actually performed the marriage (indications do still point in that direction) but not switching allegiance to the Tudor, who arrested him twice and against whom he rebelled. (He did participate in Henry's coronation as well as Richard's, but Henry may have been trying to put all memory of Titulus Regius behind him. He also extended a peace offering to John of Lincoln, who also later rebelled against him.)

It does seem clear that George, who made a show of not drinking wine from Edward's table for fear that it was poisoned, still trusted Richard. He named the little son who died after him. Without question, Richard was the victim of people who wanted to destroy the Yorkist dynasty in general and him in particular. I just don't think that Stillington was one of them. But just as Annette is exploring the possibility that Anthony, Earl Rivers was part of a conspiracy to poison Edward IV, strange as that seems when we first encounter the idea, it's worth exploring the possibility that Isabel was really poisoned (and George wasn't paranoid). I've heard but have no idea whether it's true that Ankarette was "lent" to Isabel by Elizabeth Woodville, but I can't see Isabel accepting such an offer given the Woodville family's know antipathy to George.

Anyway, I hope the link to the Stillington itinerary I provided isn't redundant. At least. it provides sources for the various commissions, pardons, debts, etc. (including one to Rous--or Rous owed him money, I can't figure out which).

Carol

I have no idea, honestly. 
Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>
> 
>Yes....but why? eileen
>
>--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.
>>
>> Sheffe 
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>> >To: "" <>
>> >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:24 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >Oh how I wish I knew!
>> > 
>> >There are so many who would have rejoiced at George overstepping the mark - again.
>> > 
>> >Thank you Stephen for putting me on the trail of Stillington.
>> >
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 18:41
>> >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >I have found out more today about Ankarette than in last few decades....I have often reminded myself, when thinking about her and what went on, that she must have been affluent, possibly well connected, presentable and convivial among other things to have attained the position of lady-in-waiting to Isobel....I presume she was a lady-in-waiting.
>> >She is rather just a footnote in history but I always think of her as the catalyst that triggered off the process that led to George's execution. I can easily imagine the Woodville's could not believe their luck when George overstepped the mark with the execution of AT....but what on earth triggered it off. eileen
>> >
>> >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ankarette is quite elusive to chase.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

> [snip] 
> 4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and promised to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7 who eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.

Carol responds:

I'm pretty sure that Ankarette's son requested Edward IV to declare Ankarette (posthumously) innocent and that he did so. I think Ross mentions it. (I just checked Kendall, who doesn't, but he does give sources for his information, Rot. Parl. VI, pp. 173-74, Cal. Patent Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 72-73.)

I don't understand how rewarding Stillington fits in--certainly not with the events of 1483.

Carol

That's just the problem--it was so easy to die of infection during or after childbirth.  If she had been perfectly healthy up to the birth (and she came through the first one all right, at least alive and able to be a wife to George again,) I can see where a random infection might have seemed like poison.

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>
> 
>Good question Eileen, " are we too quick to assume Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers". After reading all the speculation on this forum over the last few months would we be wrong to wonder if Clarence was telling the truth. Did Ankarette Twynho kill Isabel and her son? Or was George just paranoid because he had to send his son abroad because Edward had threatened him? A few years ago I might have said that there's no way that Edward would do something like that but after reading JAH's "Eleanor" book I might not be of the same opinion. Who knows, women often died in or after childbirth so we would never be able to prove it but in view of all the other things that happened in those days it could be a possibility.
>
>--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>>
>> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I thought Ankarette had previously been in in service to EW, and EW had sent her to help during Isabel's last pregnancy? Is the "in service to EW" an invention by some fiction writer?

If it's not a fiction, then perhaps, through Ankarette, George was implying the queen had indirectly helped murder his wife?

~Weds

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes....but why? eileen
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought it sounded like George was always a bit unstable, and Isobel's death put him over the edge.  I figured Ankarette was just the unfortunate on whom his suspicions landed.
> >
> > Sheffe 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.


Hi,
The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
Oh, what a murky world!
Marie


> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.


Hi,
The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
Oh, what a murky world!
Marie


>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

I remember seeing that as well, with the same Patent Rolls cite. Apparently her grandson Roger, two days after George's execution, submitted a request to have her conviction undone, and Edward immediately replied Soit fait come il est desire ("Let it be done as the petitioner requests")". (Here's the account as cited in Isobel Neville's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville#Death )

By the way: I've noticed that when traditional historians and especially Tudor fans cite Ankarette, they always cite George's judicially murdering her but I don't recall ever seeing one of them simultaneously citing the fact that one of Edward's first actions after executing George was to not merely give Ankarette a full pardon, but to grant her grandson's petition to "ordain that the record, process, verdict and judgement should be void and of no effect". Because, of course, the close temporal proximity of George's execution and the voiding of his trumped-up judgment against Ankarette would have at least strongly hinted that the judicial murder of Ankarette by George was the final straw for George as far as Edward was concerned. (Oh, yes: the grandson's petition, which Edward granted as requested, was careful not to demand punishment for the judge and other persons George had coerced into killing Ankarette.)






-----Original Message-----
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 5:32 pm
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


Hilary Jones wrote:

> [snip]Â
> 4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and promised
to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7 who
eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.

Carol responds:

I'm pretty sure that Ankarette's son requested Edward IV to declare Ankarette
(posthumously) innocent and that he did so. I think Ross mentions it. (I just
checked Kendall, who doesn't, but he does give sources for his information, Rot.
Parl. VI, pp. 173-74, Cal. Patent Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 72-73.)

I don't understand how rewarding Stillington fits in--certainly not with the
events of 1483.

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I agree with all you say. Son John died in 1485 and also passed the cup on.  Hadn't got as far as the Buckingham rebellion yet. I take it John Tame did not participate either? Like you I am finding it difficult to find anything pertaining to the Pre-Contract, Stillington etc prior to the late 1470s. I've found you can't always go by some dates. For example I couldn't find Catesby acting for Clarence prior to 1478, but actually the Catesbys had been under contract to the Warwicks (Beauchamps) since 1400 so the chances of his acting for Clarence prior to 1478 were pretty high. Could be the same with the Twynhos. Were they not linked through Ankarette with the Audleys and the Welsh borderlands in particular, so Ludlow would be a logical link?
 Have you come across JT's links to Buckingham which I stumbled on late yesterday and have not explored? This I take it must have been son JT as well.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.

Hi,
The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
Oh, what a murky world!
Marie

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.

Hi,
The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
Oh, what a murky world!
Marie

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, rushing out!  Should have said good to have you back. H


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:32
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.

Hi,
The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
Oh, what a murky world!
Marie

> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> they always cite George's judicially murdering her

As I recall, Edward retaliated by executing one of George's men. Did he
have sufficient grounds to do so, or was this a tit for tat judicial murder?

Your last paragraph begs the question did MB have any connection to the Twynyhos or any one else in Clarence's household.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
> BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
> Hi,
> The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
> Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
> Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
> Oh, what a murky world!
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Hilary,
The reason it was Roger Twynyho who petitioned parliament was because Ankarette had been a minor heiress and he was actually asking for the attainder to be overturned so that he could inherit her land. Funnily enough, Ankarette's family don't seem to have made a big thing about the martyred grandmther. None of them mentioned her in their wills or named her as one of those for whose soul prayers were to be said.
Perhaps other members of the family could have petitioned parliament on her behalf, but none had a financial motive to do so.
By the by, I noticed a mistake in my previous post - the Speaker of the Commons/ Prince's attorney was William Alyngton, not Alyngham. William Allingham was the guy who wrote:
"Up the airy mountain and down the rushy glen,
We darent't go a-hunting for fear of little men."
By the by, I meant to ask the source for all these Twynyho family links. I'd like to check it out myself; there has, as everyone is saying, to have been a reason why Clarence suspected Ankarette, although we shouldn't forget her supposed accomplice Roger Tocotes and the obscure John Thuresby who is said to have poisoned the baby.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
> BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
> Hi,
> The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
> Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
> Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
> Oh, what a murky world!
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:


//snip//
"I have a number of scenarios:

1) Stillington performed the 'marriage' of Edward and Eleanor, told George
circa 1477, George told Edward and Stillington ended up in the Tower to cool
his heals. But who encouraged him to tell George?

2) Stillington, with his insight /relationship into the Talbot/Barre/Catesby
links knew that Edward had had a fling with Eleanor in the early 1460s and
was persuaded by someone (who?) to come clean with a bit of exaggeration in
1483. That would effectiively de-stabilise an already de-stablised Yorkist
monarchy

3) The pre-contract had been known to Catesby (whose family had served the
Beauchamps since pre 1400) and he pressurised Stillington to come forward to
defend the reputation of Eleanor. But why? Humphrey Talbot seems like one
who goes with the flow (and left MB gifts in his will) and Elizabeth Mowbray
had little to gain

4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and
promised to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7
who eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.

I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are other scenarios. What I am sure
of is that Richard knew nothing of any of this and was truly a victim,
whatever way you look at it."

Doug here:
About your first possibility:
Why couldn't it have been Stillington who told George either directly before
or after the death of Isobel and her son? Or perhaps Stillington let
something slip when congratulating George on the imminent arrival of his
second child, was cornered by George and "told all"?
As previously pointed out in a post (I don't recall which, sorry), George
already felt himself to be physically in danger when at Court. If George
really did think himself in danger from someone/group, it wouldn't be too
great a step for him to think the death of his wife, and second son, wasn't
by natural causes. Or would it? Especially if Ankarette Twynyho had been
provided, or even recommended, be EW...
If one combines your points 2 and 3, there then could be a possibility of
Catesby being the one giving Stillington a "push" in 1483, with the
motive(s) possibly being as simple as Catesby just looking out for his own
interests or a combination on Catesby's part of self-interest, the fears of
what an eventual Woodville-dominated government would do to England topped
off by the pre-contract!
I think your fourth point is the weakest (is that why it's #4?), if only
because it seems to me we'd be getting into real "Hatfield and McCoy"
territory otherwise. If Ankarette's family wanted revenge on *George* for
her death, why would they go after *Edward's* family? After all, Edward had
already executed George! Wasn't that enough? Or did I misunderstand, and #4
is only about whether or not to make the pre-contract public?
Doug
(who swears he saw this on a soap years ago...)

Welcome back Marie.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary,
> The reason it was Roger Twynyho who petitioned parliament was because Ankarette had been a minor heiress and he was actually asking for the attainder to be overturned so that he could inherit her land. Funnily enough, Ankarette's family don't seem to have made a big thing about the martyred grandmther. None of them mentioned her in their wills or named her as one of those for whose soul prayers were to be said.
> Perhaps other members of the family could have petitioned parliament on her behalf, but none had a financial motive to do so.
> By the by, I noticed a mistake in my previous post - the Speaker of the Commons/ Prince's attorney was William Alyngton, not Alyngham. William Allingham was the guy who wrote:
> "Up the airy mountain and down the rushy glen,
> We darent't go a-hunting for fear of little men."
> By the by, I meant to ask the source for all these Twynyho family links. I'd like to check it out myself; there has, as everyone is saying, to have been a reason why Clarence suspected Ankarette, although we shouldn't forget her supposed accomplice Roger Tocotes and the obscure John Thuresby who is said to have poisoned the baby.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
> > BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
> >
> > Hi,
> > The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
> > Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
> > Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
> > Oh, what a murky world!
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie I'm working today and tomorrow so apologies that it will take until Sunday to give you details of the links.
 
My trail to Ankarette was as a result of trying to track down the elusive Stillington. I'd looked at the Chokke wills which mentioned his granddaughter/great neice (?) Lucy Hampton. And by doing a search on Somerset wills they led me to the Twynyhos, who mentioned the Chokkes. So I arrived at Ankarette. I don't have your level of knowledge, so I've actually started from scratch on more or less everything except the 'main characters'. My background is 'applied historical studies' which is about tracking, interpreting, applying data and making sure it's auditable. Sounds dry but is quite fun when you stumble on something 'interesting'. What heartens me the most is that not a single trail so far has led me anywhere near Richard, so Shakespeare's schemer he wasn't.
 
Now you've set me after Tootes and Thuresby. I did by the way bump into a Burdett. Wasn't Thomas Burdett a Clarence accomplice?
  

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 10:45
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

Hi Hilary,
The reason it was Roger Twynyho who petitioned parliament was because Ankarette had been a minor heiress and he was actually asking for the attainder to be overturned so that he could inherit her land. Funnily enough, Ankarette's family don't seem to have made a big thing about the martyred grandmther. None of them mentioned her in their wills or named her as one of those for whose soul prayers were to be said.
Perhaps other members of the family could have petitioned parliament on her behalf, but none had a financial motive to do so.
By the by, I noticed a mistake in my previous post - the Speaker of the Commons/ Prince's attorney was William Alyngton, not Alyngham. William Allingham was the guy who wrote:
"Up the airy mountain and down the rushy glen,
We darent't go a-hunting for fear of little men."
By the by, I meant to ask the source for all these Twynyho family links. I'd like to check it out myself; there has, as everyone is saying, to have been a reason why Clarence suspected Ankarette, although we shouldn't forget her supposed accomplice Roger Tocotes and the obscure John Thuresby who is said to have poisoned the baby.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
> BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her sonàwas apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
>
> Hi,
> The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
> Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
> Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
> Oh, what a murky world!
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I honestly don't know and spend many a sleepless hour mulling it over. It will take more than one brain and we've a lot on here. I'm sure someone could write the most marvellous fiction thriller about it all with Morton as George Smiley.
PS I agree the fourth point is the weakest - I don't think many merchants/gentry really cared who governed as long as it served their interests.  Nothing really changes, does it?


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 17:33
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

//snip//
"I have a number of scenarios:

1) Stillington performed the 'marriage' of Edward and Eleanor, told George
circa 1477, George told Edward and Stillington ended up in the Tower to cool
his heals. But who encouraged him to tell George?

2) Stillington, with his insight /relationship into the Talbot/Barre/Catesby
links knew that Edward had had a fling with Eleanor in the early 1460s and
was persuaded by someone (who?) to come clean with a bit of exaggeration in
1483. That would effectiively de-stabilise an already de-stablised Yorkist
monarchy

3) The pre-contract had been known to Catesby (whose family had served the
Beauchamps since pre 1400) and he pressurised Stillington to come forward to
defend the reputation of Eleanor. But why? Humphrey Talbot seems like one
who goes with the flow (and left MB gifts in his will) and Elizabeth Mowbray
had little to gain

4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and
promised to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7
who eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.

I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are other scenarios. What I am sure
of is that Richard knew nothing of any of this and was truly a victim,
whatever way you look at it."

Doug here:
About your first possibility:
Why couldn't it have been Stillington who told George either directly before
or after the death of Isobel and her son? Or perhaps Stillington let
something slip when congratulating George on the imminent arrival of his
second child, was cornered by George and "told all"?
As previously pointed out in a post (I don't recall which, sorry), George
already felt himself to be physically in danger when at Court. If George
really did think himself in danger from someone/group, it wouldn't be too
great a step for him to think the death of his wife, and second son, wasn't
by natural causes. Or would it? Especially if Ankarette Twynyho had been
provided, or even recommended, be EW...
If one combines your points 2 and 3, there then could be a possibility of
Catesby being the one giving Stillington a "push" in 1483, with the
motive(s) possibly being as simple as Catesby just looking out for his own
interests or a combination on Catesby's part of self-interest, the fears of
what an eventual Woodville-dominated government would do to England topped
off by the pre-contract!
I think your fourth point is the weakest (is that why it's #4?), if only
because it seems to me we'd be getting into real "Hatfield and McCoy"
territory otherwise. If Ankarette's family wanted revenge on *George* for
her death, why would they go after *Edward's* family? After all, Edward had
already executed George! Wasn't that enough? Or did I misunderstand, and #4
is only about whether or not to make the pre-contract public?
Doug
(who swears he saw this on a soap years ago...)

Trouble is people who died after childbirth died quickly because septicaemia set in. Isabel had given birth in September and didn't die until December. That would be far too long (says she who's not a doctor). You can see why Clarence thought she was poisoned but loads of folks must have given her drinks - she had the baby at Tewkesbury Infirmary and moved back to Warwick. Why would he choose some woman of 72 unless he thought she had connections who made her do it?


________________________________
From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

That's just the problem--it was so easy to die of infection during or after childbirth.  If she had been perfectly healthy up to the birth (and she came through the first one all right, at least alive and able to be a wife to George again,) I can see where a random infection might have seemed like poison.

Sheffe

>________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>
> 
>Good question Eileen, " are we too quick to assume Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers". After reading all the speculation on this forum over the last few months would we be wrong to wonder if Clarence was telling the truth. Did Ankarette Twynho kill Isabel and her son? Or was George just paranoid because he had to send his son abroad because Edward had threatened him? A few years ago I might have said that there's no way that Edward would do something like that but after reading JAH's "Eleanor" book I might not be of the same opinion. Who knows, women often died in or after childbirth so we would never be able to prove it but in view of all the other things that happened in those days it could be a possibility.
>
>--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
>>
>> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree this is the weakest scenario; I was just tossing out a few. The Parliament Rolls upheld Roger T's complaint but it was H7 who actually exonerated A of the crime.
 
I am just suggesting one reason why Stillington might have wanted to de-stabilise the Yorkist monarchy. I'm not saying that he did wish to do so, but he certainly succeeded, as did whoever stirred up Clarence's irrational actions in 1477


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 23:31
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

Hilary Jones wrote:

> [snip] 
> 4) The Chokkes/Twynyhos wanted revenge for the death of Ankarette and promised to reward Stillington's family (they were very rich) and it was H7 who eventually actually declared Ankarette innocent.

Carol responds:

I'm pretty sure that Ankarette's son requested Edward IV to declare Ankarette (posthumously) innocent and that he did so. I think Ross mentions it. (I just checked Kendall, who doesn't, but he does give sources for his information, Rot. Parl. VI, pp. 173-74, Cal. Patent Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 72-73.)

I don't understand how rewarding Stillington fits in--certainly not with the events of 1483.

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> Trouble is people who died after childbirth died quickly because
> septicaemia set in. Isabel had given birth in September and didn't die
> until December. That would be far too long (says she who's not a doctor).

I think you're right, although AJ would know better. One pregnancy-related
illness which *does* operate over that sort of timescale is post-natal
depression: I suppose there's a horrible possibility that Isobel poisoned
*herself* and George didn't want to believe it, esopecially as if he did
believe it he'd have to believe she was in hell.

Hi Hilary,
I look forward to your links, and perhaps we can swap some wills?
Thomas Burdet was a retainer of Clarence's. He was arrested on Edward's orders not long after the Ankarette business and executed along with an astrologer named John Stacey. Burdet had been convicted of distributing seditious literature shortly before his arrest and, prior to that, commissioning Stacey to chart the horoscopes of the King and Prince of Wales and then letting people know they hadn't got long to live.
Burdet protested his innocence to the last, and Clarence also went about protesting Burdeet's innocence.
By the by, on the subject of who overturned Ankarette's conviction - it was Edward IV and not Henry VII.
Marie


>  
> Now you've set me after Tootes and Thuresby. I did by the way bump into a Burdett. Wasn't Thomas Burdett a Clarence accomplice?
>   
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 10:45
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> Hi Hilary,
> The reason it was Roger Twynyho who petitioned parliament was because Ankarette had been a minor heiress and he was actually asking for the attainder to be overturned so that he could inherit her land. Funnily enough, Ankarette's family don't seem to have made a big thing about the martyred grandmther. None of them mentioned her in their wills or named her as one of those for whose soul prayers were to be said.
> Perhaps other members of the family could have petitioned parliament on her behalf, but none had a financial motive to do so.
> By the by, I noticed a mistake in my previous post - the Speaker of the Commons/ Prince's attorney was William Alyngton, not Alyngham. William Allingham was the guy who wrote:
> "Up the airy mountain and down the rushy glen,
> We darent't go a-hunting for fear of little men."
> By the by, I meant to ask the source for all these Twynyho family links. I'd like to check it out myself; there has, as everyone is saying, to have been a reason why Clarence suspected Ankarette, although we shouldn't forget her supposed accomplice Roger Tocotes and the obscure John Thuresby who is said to have poisoned the baby.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > What is interesting is that given the number of Somerset lawyers and MPs with Twynyho connections (particularly if you add on the Chokkes and the Cradoc Newtons)  and Stillington as Bishop for the area, it was left to grandson Roger to raise the issue. According to me, and what I've gathered could be wrong, he would have been well under 20 when he did so in the 1478 Parliament? Was that because only he could do so as 'heir'? I would have thought that as it was clearly judicial murder any lawyer or MP could have raised it. As I've said elsewhere information on the Twynyhos and their dates is full of conflicts - even when people are quoting memorial brasses. The only safe thing seems to be their wills.
> > BTW if someone was trying to push Clarence over the edge (and get another Yorkist out of the way) after the death of his wife, they were very effective.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 0:34
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't read Hicks. It wasn't until yesterday that I was trying to match the Somerset connections of Stillington and stumbled on the fact that Ankarette's son held that position. Her son was apparently also quite close to our George at one point, because G probably gave him a cup. I am now even more muddled in what I believe, or don't. Like you I was into the bonkers scenario.
> >
> > Hi,
> > The lawyer John Twynyho of Cirencester, who was the Prince's attorney and was given a cup by Clarence, was Ankarette's brother-in-law, not her son. Her husband William Twynyho had died before 1477, as had her elder son John, leaving John's son Roger (ie her grandson) as her heir.
> > Brother-in-law John T. of Cirencester may have been on Clarence's side. Not only did Clarence give him a cup, but John refers to him in his will as the venerabilis (noble) duke of Clarence. Also, on their way from Frome to Warwick, Ankarette and her captors made an overnight stop at Cirencester. Unlike Ankarette's surviving son William and her son-in-law Thomas (de la) Lynde, John T. of Cirencester did not participate in Buckingham's Rebellion and Richard continued to use his services throughout his reign.
> > Also, although I was at first excited about John Twynyho's links with the Prince, I've not yet found any evidence of him acting as attorney-general to Prince Edward earlier than the beginning of 1478. Prince Edward's previous attorney-General was Sir William Alyngham, who was still alive in Jan/Feb 1478 (he died in 1479) and was the Speaker of the Commons in the parliament that attainted Clarence - you know, the one who came into the lords some days after the attainder to express the commons' wish that the sentence should be carried out.
> > Oh, what a murky world!
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 16:39
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Trouble is people who died after childbirth died quickly because septicaemia set in. Isabel had given birth in September and didn't die until December. That would be far too long (says she who's not a doctor). You can see why Clarence thought she was poisoned but loads of folks must have given her drinks - she had the baby at Tewkesbury Infirmary and moved back to Warwick. Why would he choose some woman of 72 unless he thought she had connections who made her do it?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 23:33
> Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> That's just the problem--it was so easy to die of infection during or after childbirth.  If she had been perfectly healthy up to the birth (and she came through the first one all right, at least alive and able to be a wife to George again,) I can see where a random infection might have seemed like poison.
>
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Good question Eileen, " are we too quick to assume Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers". After reading all the speculation on this forum over the last few months would we be wrong to wonder if Clarence was telling the truth. Did Ankarette Twynho kill Isabel and her son? Or was George just paranoid because he had to send his son abroad because Edward had threatened him? A few years ago I might have said that there's no way that Edward would do something like that but after reading JAH's "Eleanor" book I might not be of the same opinion. Who knows, women often died in or after childbirth so we would never be able to prove it but in view of all the other things that happened in those days it could be a possibility.
> >
> >--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not really...Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> I remember seeing that as well, with the same Patent Rolls cite. Apparently her grandson Roger, two days after George's execution, submitted a request to have her conviction undone, and Edward immediately replied Soit fait come il est desire ("Let it be done as the petitioner requests")". (Here's the account as cited in Isobel Neville's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville#Death )

Carol responds:

Hi. I've forgotten your name again. Can I get you to sign your posts? I noticed on reading the Patent Rolls excerpt that George specified the date and method of poisoning (poison in a cup of ale on October 10, 1477). That was four days after the baby's birth--about the time that symptoms of puerperal (childbed) fever would begin to set in--between three and six days after the birth, according to the only source I could find (though that disease doesn't usually last two and a half months--Elizabeth of York died within a week of giving birth to her last child. Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Mary Shelley, lived eleven days). I haven't considered other causes of death after childbirth or the effect of these diseases on the infant. There's also the theory that she was consumptive.

At any rate, George must have seen Ankarette giving Isabel a cup of ale, noted that she fell ill soon afterward, and reasoned post hoc ergo propter hoc that she fell ill *because* of the cup of ale, which must therefore (according to George) have been poisoned. The child, who may have been weak to begin with or infected with the disease that killed his mother, died about a week and a half after she did. I doubt that she nursed him given her social class, but he could have been infected during his birth (or poisoned separately though he would only drink breast milk at that point, so poisoning him would be difficult. But why accuse "the obscure John Thoresby" (as Marie calls him--I'm probably misremembering the spelling but can't check without losing my post). Obviously, he wasn't the wet nurse! Did he have Woodville connections?

I don't think George would have been suspicious of people connected with Margaret Beaufort (or Morton). He could not have known that they were *already* plotting the destruction of the entire Yorkist line--if indeed that's what they were doing at this early date. Apparently, he feared for the safety of his elder son, Edward, since he planned to send him out of the country, but it seems to be Edward or the Woodvilles that he was afraid of. (It may not be coincidence that Ankarette's relatives supported Tudor against Richard. They may well have been loyal to Edward V. Which is not to say that Ankarette poisoned Isabel, only that George might have suspected her of doing so because of [possible] Woodville connections.)

If anyone is interested in reading about puerperal fever and perhaps comparing the symptoms to (slow) poisoning, here's an interesting article: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf Personally, I think that Isabel's illness, whatever its cause, lasted too long to be puerperal fever (October 10 to December 22) but also too long to be caused by most poisons.

Apologies if this message posts twice. I didn't see it among the new posts.

Carol

Hello! Tamara again (sorry about my forgetting to sign me name) --

I suspect that both Isobel and Anne had TB by the time they were in their mid-twenties, which in Isobel's case would have likely weakened her enough to make it hard for her to shake off a fever, especially if more than one site on her body was infected. Or perhaps what may have started as a fever turned into something else, like double pneumonia, which can and does linger for weeks on end.

Right now I'm in the midst of fighting off yet another bout of the common cold, as my husband and I have spent much of the past three months passing a cold back and forth between us. And we're both healthy well-nourished people who eat our root vegetables, whereas the doctors of the time were usually far less competent than most witches or granny women -- Paracelsus wouldn't be born until nearly two decades after Isobel's death -- and insisted among other things that root veggies (in other words, things loaded with Vitamins A and D and C) were not for noble types. If he and I are having problems shaking a winter cold, I figure it's eminently possible Isobel was felled by a cold, or a flu.

Tamara







-----Original Message-----
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)




--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> I remember seeing that as well, with the same Patent Rolls cite. Apparently
her grandson Roger, two days after George's execution, submitted a request to
have her conviction undone, and Edward immediately replied Soit fait come il
est desire ("Let it be done as the petitioner requests")". (Here's the account
as cited in Isobel Neville's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville#Death
)

Carol responds:

Hi. I've forgotten your name again. Can I get you to sign your posts? I noticed
on reading the Patent Rolls excerpt that George specified the date and method of
poisoning (poison in a cup of ale on October 10, 1477). That was four days after
the baby's birth--about the time that symptoms of puerperal (childbed) fever
would begin to set in--between three and six days after the birth, according to
the only source I could find (though that disease doesn't usually last two and a
half months--Elizabeth of York died within a week of giving birth to her last
child. Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Mary Shelley, lived eleven days). I
haven't considered other causes of death after childbirth or the effect of these
diseases on the infant. There's also the theory that she was consumptive.

At any rate, George must have seen Ankarette giving Isabel a cup of ale, noted
that she fell ill soon afterward, and reasoned post hoc ergo propter hoc that
she fell ill *because* of the cup of ale, which must therefore (according to
George) have been poisoned. The child, who may have been weak to begin with or
infected with the disease that killed his mother, died about a week and a half
after she did. I doubt that she nursed him given her social class, but he could
have been infected during his birth (or poisoned separately though he would only
drink breast milk at that point, so poisoning him would be difficult. But why
accuse "the obscure John Thoresby" (as Marie calls him--I'm probably
misremembering the spelling but can't check without losing my post). Obviously,
he wasn't the wet nurse! Did he have Woodville connections?

I don't think George would have been suspicious of people connected with
Margaret Beaufort (or Morton). He could not have known that they were *already*
plotting the destruction of the entire Yorkist line--if indeed that's what they
were doing at this early date. Apparently, he feared for the safety of his elder
son, Edward, since he planned to send him out of the country, but it seems to be
Edward or the Woodvilles that he was afraid of. (It may not be coincidence that
Ankarette's relatives supported Tudor against Richard. They may well have been
loyal to Edward V. Which is not to say that Ankarette poisoned Isabel, only that
George might have suspected her of doing so because of [possible] Woodville
connections.)

If anyone is interested in reading about puerperal fever and perhaps comparing
the symptoms to (slow) poisoning, here's an interesting article:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf Personally, I think that
Isabel's illness, whatever its cause, lasted too long to be puerperal fever
(October 10 to December 22) but also too long to be caused by most poisons.

Apologies if this message posts twice. I didn't see it among the new posts.

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I can well believe that it was the complications that did her in. 

Neither she nor her sister were particularly healthy, and if she had, like what is thought to have happened with Anne, become consumptive somewhere along the line, that would have weakened her to the point where fevers would have been hard to shake, particularly in the wintertime.






-----Original Message-----
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)






Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to
die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's
birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick
when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered
about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag
before the start of childbirth fever.
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
wrote:
>
> Trouble is people who died after childbirth died quickly because septicaemia
set in. Isabel had given birth in September and didn't die until December. That
would be far too long (says she who's not a doctor). You can see why Clarence
thought she was poisoned but loads of folks must have given her drinks - she
had the baby at Tewkesbury Infirmary and moved back to Warwick. Why would he
choose some woman of 72 unless he thought she had connections who made her do
it?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
> To: "" <>

> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 23:33
> Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> That's just the problem--it was so easy to die of infection during or after
childbirth.  If she had been perfectly healthy up to the birth (and she came
through the first one all right, at least alive and able to be a wife to George
again,) I can see where a random infection might have seemed like poison.
>
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and
Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Good question Eileen, " are we too quick to assume Clarence had lost the plot
and gone slightly bonkers". After reading all the speculation on this forum over
the last few months would we be wrong to wonder if Clarence was telling the
truth. Did Ankarette Twynho kill Isabel and her son? Or was George just
paranoid because he had to send his son abroad because Edward had threatened
him? A few years ago I might have said that there's no way that Edward would do
something like that but after reading JAH's "Eleanor" book I might not be of the
same opinion. Who knows, women often died in or after childbirth so we would
never be able to prove it but in view of all the other things that happened in
those days it could be a possibility.
> >
> >--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes I have...I find the story quite extraordinary.....Are we too quick to
assume that Clarence had lost the plot and gone slightly bonkers..? I thought
the Hicks book might enlighten me on this strange matter but no...not
really...Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone ever asked why Clarence 'chose' Ankarette?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

<*> 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/

Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and weakened.

On Apr 27, 2013, at 1:08 AM, "khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:



Hello! Tamara again (sorry about my forgetting to sign me name) --

I suspect that both Isobel and Anne had TB by the time they were in their mid-twenties, which in Isobel's case would have likely weakened her enough to make it hard for her to shake off a fever, especially if more than one site on her body was infected. Or perhaps what may have started as a fever turned into something else, like double pneumonia, which can and does linger for weeks on end.

Right now I'm in the midst of fighting off yet another bout of the common cold, as my husband and I have spent much of the past three months passing a cold back and forth between us. And we're both healthy well-nourished people who eat our root vegetables, whereas the doctors of the time were usually far less competent than most witches or granny women -- Paracelsus wouldn't be born until nearly two decades after Isobel's death -- and insisted among other things that root veggies (in other words, things loaded with Vitamins A and D and C) were not for noble types. If he and I are having problems shaking a winter cold, I figure it's eminently possible Isobel was felled by a cold, or a flu.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, khafara@... wrote:
>
> I remember seeing that as well, with the same Patent Rolls cite. Apparently
her grandson Roger, two days after George's execution, submitted a request to
have her conviction undone, and Edward immediately replied Soit fait come il
est desire ("Let it be done as the petitioner requests")". (Here's the account
as cited in Isobel Neville's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville#Death
)

Carol responds:

Hi. I've forgotten your name again. Can I get you to sign your posts? I noticed
on reading the Patent Rolls excerpt that George specified the date and method of
poisoning (poison in a cup of ale on October 10, 1477). That was four days after
the baby's birth--about the time that symptoms of puerperal (childbed) fever
would begin to set in--between three and six days after the birth, according to
the only source I could find (though that disease doesn't usually last two and a
half months--Elizabeth of York died within a week of giving birth to her last
child. Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Mary Shelley, lived eleven days). I
haven't considered other causes of death after childbirth or the effect of these
diseases on the infant. There's also the theory that she was consumptive.

At any rate, George must have seen Ankarette giving Isabel a cup of ale, noted
that she fell ill soon afterward, and reasoned post hoc ergo propter hoc that
she fell ill *because* of the cup of ale, which must therefore (according to
George) have been poisoned. The child, who may have been weak to begin with or
infected with the disease that killed his mother, died about a week and a half
after she did. I doubt that she nursed him given her social class, but he could
have been infected during his birth (or poisoned separately though he would only
drink breast milk at that point, so poisoning him would be difficult. But why
accuse "the obscure John Thoresby" (as Marie calls him--I'm probably
misremembering the spelling but can't check without losing my post). Obviously,
he wasn't the wet nurse! Did he have Woodville connections?

I don't think George would have been suspicious of people connected with
Margaret Beaufort (or Morton). He could not have known that they were *already*
plotting the destruction of the entire Yorkist line--if indeed that's what they
were doing at this early date. Apparently, he feared for the safety of his elder
son, Edward, since he planned to send him out of the country, but it seems to be
Edward or the Woodvilles that he was afraid of. (It may not be coincidence that
Ankarette's relatives supported Tudor against Richard. They may well have been
loyal to Edward V. Which is not to say that Ankarette poisoned Isabel, only that
George might have suspected her of doing so because of [possible] Woodville
connections.)

If anyone is interested in reading about puerperal fever and perhaps comparing
the symptoms to (slow) poisoning, here's an interesting article:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf Personally, I think that
Isabel's illness, whatever its cause, lasted too long to be puerperal fever
(October 10 to December 22) but also too long to be caused by most poisons.

Apologies if this message posts twice. I didn't see it among the new posts.

Carol

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Pamela Bain wrote:


"Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and
weakened."

Doug here:
If I remember my history correctly, that exact thing happened to George
Washington. He was seriously ill with a respiratory infection and his
"doctors" withdrew, I believe, more than one pint of blood! Had they not
done so, he might well have lived to see the new century (he died in 1799).
*If* Isobel was being treated similarly, that might very well explain the
length of time between her becoming ill and finally dying; ie, she would
regain her health just enough to *begin* recuperating and then, just as her
body had replaced the blood previously drawn, the doctors would bleed her
again!
And as that was the standard practice, no particular notice of it, *or
record*, would be taken.
Doug

Marie wrote:

"Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five
weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after
her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was
already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was
supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told
is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever."

Doug here:
Welcome back Marie (however briefly)!
Is puerperal (sp) fever automatically fatal? If not, and ff one adds five
weeks to October, that would bring us to some time in November. If it was
something such as being bled that finally caused Isobel's death, might the
remaining time might be accounted for by the periods in between her being
bled?
I'm not up on the symptoms of puerperal fever, but I would think that *if*
she was also being bled with any regularity (to keep the "humors" balanced?)
her body would simply lack the ability to recover from giving birth, let
alone get better.
So rather than being poisoned, it's more likely she may have died from a of
lack of blood which complicated her recovery from childbirth?
Doug

Yes...I remember reading in Secret History Part ll, that people would avoid doctors as much as they could. Probably the poor could not afford them anyway which meant those that could, the upper classes and nobility were probably more likely to die from the treatments that existed at that time. I also recall that the Roman doctors knew more than their medieval counterparts....Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
>
> "Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and
> weakened."
>
> Doug here:
> If I remember my history correctly, that exact thing happened to George
> Washington. He was seriously ill with a respiratory infection and his
> "doctors" withdrew, I believe, more than one pint of blood! Had they not
> done so, he might well have lived to see the new century (he died in 1799).
> *If* Isobel was being treated similarly, that might very well explain the
> length of time between her becoming ill and finally dying; ie, she would
> regain her health just enough to *begin* recuperating and then, just as her
> body had replaced the blood previously drawn, the doctors would bleed her
> again!
> And as that was the standard practice, no particular notice of it, *or
> record*, would be taken.
> Doug
>

Hilary Jones wrote:


"I honestly don't know and spend many a sleepless hour mulling it over. It
will take more than one brain and we've a lot on here. I'm sure someone
could write the most marvellous fiction thriller about it all with Morton as
George Smiley.
PS I agree the fourth point is the weakest - I don't think many
merchants/gentry really cared who governed as long as it served their
interests. Nothing really changes, does it?"

Doug here:
My personal opinion is that, somehow, someway, George found out about Edward
and Eleanor sometime not too long before or after his wife gave birth to
their second child. I could easily be wrong because I'm basing that
presumption on what we currently know about George, his character and his
actions previously to 1477/8. Somehow, I just can't see George *not* raising
a stink about *his* position as next in line to the throne if he'd known!
And, more importantly, thought he could prove it.
It may very well have been, as I suggested in an earlier post, that it was
Isobel who was the "brains" of the family, she and George had known for some
time about the marriage (but then, *who* told?), and her reasoning was the
same as Stillington's: Edward IV was legitimately the King, wait until he
dies before taking any action.
When Isobel died, so did the one person who could, for want of a better
word, "control" George and keep him out of trouble.
If all this with the pre-contract *was* organized (hints being dropped,
people being nudged to act, etc), I agree with you Morton is the best
candidate for being the "puppetmaster".
Have anyone sugested Morton as being the one, or behind whoever did, who
told George? The same reasoning as Stillington's would apply to Morton *not*
making the pre-contract public - Edward IV was the legitimate king and even
if Edward's children were prevented from inheriting the throne, somehow or
someway, George and his son(s) were still around, as was Richard. So why not
start with the most unstable of the three and see what happens...
Doug
ps: Isn't this more Edgar Wallace territory, than John LeCarre?

Has the possibility of eclampsia been suggested?

That condition might easily be mis-interpreted as poisoning, I think...?

Another interesting post Douglas...re your comment below reminded me of something I have read in the Hicks book...

"One is reminded of the chronicler's (Croyland) observations......concerning the relations of the king and duke.....'you might then have seen (as such men are generally to be found in the courts of all princes), flatterers running to and fro, from the one side to the other, and carrying backwards and forwards the words which had falen from the two brothers, even if they had happened to be spoken in the most secret closet'...

Whew...what a nest or vipers...Hicks goes on to say "Talebearers told tales to the king in spite of their ties of loyalty to the duke. What Clarence uttered in private might well be unsuitable for Edward's ear. It might even constitute treason by words. From his intimates exclusive loyalty was required. If it was not forthcoming, vengeance might be swift and drastic...." . The Wydeville star was rising...

I think there were some that deserted Clarence like rats deserting a sinking ship. Although flawed in some ways, as we all are, I dont think he was as bad as has been painted and to say that he was mad, bad or simply a drunk is too simplistic although he may well have let his tongue run away with him when he had imbibed a tad too much. Who knows...

Ive really enjoyed Hick's book in the main....and found him very fair with his summing up of George...too bad he could not apply this fairness to George's brother....very strange.
Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>

> If all this with the pre-contract *was* organized (hints being dropped,
> people being nudged to act, etc), I agree with you Morton is the best
> candidate for being the "puppetmaster".
> Have anyone sugested Morton as being the one, or behind whoever did, who
> told George? The same reasoning as Stillington's would apply to Morton *not*
> making the pre-contract public - Edward IV was the legitimate king and even
> if Edward's children were prevented from inheriting the throne, somehow or
> someway, George and his son(s) were still around, as was Richard. So why not
> start with the most unstable of the three and see what happens...
> Doug
> ps: Isn't this more Edgar Wallace territory, than John LeCarre?
>

Hi Doug,
Can I say how much I enjoy your posts - always very insightful (although I hate that word).
I had some correspondence with Kay Anderson (Oregon Katy) on this topic a couple of years back - she is pretty well up on medical history. Basically, puerperal fever starts with a localised infection in the womb, where it causes pain and foul discharge, then gets into the bloodstream and produces septicaemia. How likely it is to be fatal, and how long it takes to kill when it is, depends a lot what bacteria are involved. Ironically, things got worse after doctors took over delivering babies, particularly in hospitals. They were cros-infecting new mothers with really nasty bugs other patients had because they didn't wash their hands! There are even records of eminent doctors going from dissecting corpses to delivering babies without any thought of soap and water in between.
It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering when something else got her.

By the by, has anyone heard from Kay recently? I've been trying to get in touch but not heard anything for some while.

Marie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five
> weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after
> her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was
> already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was
> supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told
> is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever."
>
> Doug here:
> Welcome back Marie (however briefly)!
> Is puerperal (sp) fever automatically fatal? If not, and ff one adds five
> weeks to October, that would bring us to some time in November. If it was
> something such as being bled that finally caused Isobel's death, might the
> remaining time might be accounted for by the periods in between her being
> bled?
> I'm not up on the symptoms of puerperal fever, but I would think that *if*
> she was also being bled with any regularity (to keep the "humors" balanced?)
> her body would simply lack the ability to recover from giving birth, let
> alone get better.
> So rather than being poisoned, it's more likely she may have died from a of
> lack of blood which complicated her recovery from childbirth?
> Doug
>

Good to see you back Marie...but no..Katy has not posted for ages...eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
> Can I say how much I enjoy your posts - always very insightful (although I hate that word).
> I had some correspondence with Kay Anderson (Oregon Katy) on this topic a couple of years back - she is pretty well up on medical history. Basically, puerperal fever starts with a localised infection in the womb, where it causes pain and foul discharge, then gets into the bloodstream and produces septicaemia. How likely it is to be fatal, and how long it takes to kill when it is, depends a lot what bacteria are involved. Ironically, things got worse after doctors took over delivering babies, particularly in hospitals. They were cros-infecting new mothers with really nasty bugs other patients had because they didn't wash their hands! There are even records of eminent doctors going from dissecting corpses to delivering babies without any thought of soap and water in between.
> It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering when something else got her.
>
> By the by, has anyone heard from Kay recently? I've been trying to get in touch but not heard anything for some while.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five
> > weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after
> > her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was
> > already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was
> > supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told
> > is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Welcome back Marie (however briefly)!
> > Is puerperal (sp) fever automatically fatal? If not, and ff one adds five
> > weeks to October, that would bring us to some time in November. If it was
> > something such as being bled that finally caused Isobel's death, might the
> > remaining time might be accounted for by the periods in between her being
> > bled?
> > I'm not up on the symptoms of puerperal fever, but I would think that *if*
> > she was also being bled with any regularity (to keep the "humors" balanced?)
> > her body would simply lack the ability to recover from giving birth, let
> > alone get better.
> > So rather than being poisoned, it's more likely she may have died from a of
> > lack of blood which complicated her recovery from childbirth?
> > Doug
> >
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> Edward IV was legitimately the King, wait until he
dies before taking any action.

And they had no reason to think he was going to die as young as he did -
unless he was poisoned, which I don't personally believe. If the matter of
Edward's IV invalid marriage was brought up and proved while he was alive,
and he didn't simply have everyone who mentioned it thrown into jail, as far
as they knew he had plenty of time to do grovellingly insincere penance,
quietly downgrade EW to second-favourite mistress, marry someone else
legitimately and produce a true heir who could be 20 before his father died,
as far as they knew. Better to sit on the informnation until Edward had
died without legitimate heir.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
andClarence (not genealogy)


> Yes...I remember reading in Secret History Part ll, that people would
> avoid doctors as much as they could. Probably the poor could not afford
> them anyway which meant those that could, the upper classes and nobility
> were probably more likely to die from the treatments that existed at that
> time. I also recall that the Roman doctors knew more than their medieval
> counterparts....Eileen

I think it depended where you lived. The great Augustinian charitable
hospital at Soutra in the Scottish Borders, founded in 1164, had very
sophisticated treatments including a general anaesthetic (albeit one we
would now regard as unacceptably risky, since it was mainly mandrake), but
it was already in decline from the 1460s on and its treatment methods don't
seem to have been widely known elsewhere.

Bleeding is of course good for some conditions - for high blood pressure,
for haemochromatosis (build-up of iron in the blood) and accto the guy who
trained James Heriot, for laminitis (inflammation of the nail-bed) in
horses. But having observed that it was good for some things, they then
decided that it must be good for everything.

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> Marie

Carol responds:

Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.

The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf

says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).

The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.

How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.

At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:

Possible causes of Isabel's death:

1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else

2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors

3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)

4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)

5) Other unknown cause

Possible causes of the baby's death:

1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.

2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)

3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)

Timeline:

October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)

October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.

December 22--Isabel dies.

January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)

April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.

April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.

Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.

February 14, 1478--George executed.

February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.

Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.

June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.

Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)

At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).

My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!

Carol

Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any evidence for it.
The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.
>
> The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
>
> http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
>
> says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
>
> The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
>
> How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.
>
> At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
>
> Possible causes of Isabel's death:
>
> 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else
>
> 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors
>
> 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
>
> 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
>
> 5) Other unknown cause
>
> Possible causes of the baby's death:
>
> 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.
>
> 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
>
> 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)
>
> Timeline:
>
> October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)
>
> October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
>
> December 22--Isabel dies.
>
> January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
>
> April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.
>
> April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
>
> Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
>
> February 14, 1478--George executed.
>
> February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.
>
> Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
>
> June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
>
> Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
>
> At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
>
> My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
>
> Carol
>

If it helps at all, Thoresby/Thuresby is a northern or Yorkshire name. The society for the History of Leeds is called the Thoresby Society after an early local historian, and dictionaries of the etymology of names trace it to "Thor" and consequently pinpoint it to Nottinghamshire and areas further north with Viking connections - specifically to a village near Skipton, actually. 
I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but in the absence of other evidence, this connection might be worth investigating. Skipton belonged to the Clifford family, of whom "Butcher" Clifford was named after wakefield as the murderer of young Edmund. He was killed at Ferrybridge and his heirs disinherited. William Stanley held Skipton Castle and the Lordship of Craven until 1474, when Richard acquired it. 
--- On Sat, 27/4/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)


.

Edgar Wallace or Smiley I just have this view of Morton (genial not sinister) as the master puppeteer in an immensely complex long-term game. A game learned from observing Louis XI and his methods.
Stillington - I don't know why but I don't like him. Perhaps because the origins of his nephew Nyke are an enigma and his northern connections are more Lancaster than York. And that's odd because when you investigate someone you gain an attachment to them - says she who once wrote an essay in defence of Robespierre
Until the last couple of weeks I would have said that George knew about the pre-contract from 1469. Now for me it's all up in the air.
But I agree entirely when you say we have underestimated the influence of Isabel. She was the catalyst, or rather her death was, to eliminate someone of significant power.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 17:14
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"I honestly don't know and spend many a sleepless hour mulling it over. It
will take more than one brain and we've a lot on here. I'm sure someone
could write the most marvellous fiction thriller about it all with Morton as
George Smiley.
PS I agree the fourth point is the weakest - I don't think many
merchants/gentry really cared who governed as long as it served their
interests. Nothing really changes, does it?"

Doug here:
My personal opinion is that, somehow, someway, George found out about Edward
and Eleanor sometime not too long before or after his wife gave birth to
their second child. I could easily be wrong because I'm basing that
presumption on what we currently know about George, his character and his
actions previously to 1477/8. Somehow, I just can't see George *not* raising
a stink about *his* position as next in line to the throne if he'd known!
And, more importantly, thought he could prove it.
It may very well have been, as I suggested in an earlier post, that it was
Isobel who was the "brains" of the family, she and George had known for some
time about the marriage (but then, *who* told?), and her reasoning was the
same as Stillington's: Edward IV was legitimately the King, wait until he
dies before taking any action.
When Isobel died, so did the one person who could, for want of a better
word, "control" George and keep him out of trouble.
If all this with the pre-contract *was* organized (hints being dropped,
people being nudged to act, etc), I agree with you Morton is the best
candidate for being the "puppetmaster".
Have anyone sugested Morton as being the one, or behind whoever did, who
told George? The same reasoning as Stillington's would apply to Morton *not*
making the pre-contract public - Edward IV was the legitimate king and even
if Edward's children were prevented from inheriting the throne, somehow or
someway, George and his son(s) were still around, as was Richard. So why not
start with the most unstable of the three and see what happens...
Doug
ps: Isn't this more Edgar Wallace territory, than John LeCarre?

I agree entirely with your latter point.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any evidence for it.
The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.
>
> The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
>
> http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
>
> says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
>
> The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
>
> How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.
>
> At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
>
> Possible causes of Isabel's death:
>
> 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else
>
> 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors
>
> 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
>
> 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
>
> 5) Other unknown cause
>
> Possible causes of the baby's death:
>
> 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.
>
> 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
>
> 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)
>
> Timeline:
>
> October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)
>
> October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
>
> December 22--Isabel dies.
>
> January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
>
> April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.
>
> April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
>
> Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
>
> February 14, 1478--George executed.
>
> February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.
>
> Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
>
> June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
>
> Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
>
> At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
>
> My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
>
> Carol
>

And didn't Charles II suffer a similar awful fate?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington andClarence (not genealogy)


 

Yes...I remember reading in Secret History Part ll, that people would avoid doctors as much as they could. Probably the poor could not afford them anyway which meant those that could, the upper classes and nobility were probably more likely to die from the treatments that existed at that time. I also recall that the Roman doctors knew more than their medieval counterparts....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
>
> "Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and
> weakened."
>
> Doug here:
> If I remember my history correctly, that exact thing happened to George
> Washington. He was seriously ill with a respiratory infection and his
> "doctors" withdrew, I believe, more than one pint of blood! Had they not
> done so, he might well have lived to see the new century (he died in 1799).
> *If* Isobel was being treated similarly, that might very well explain the
> length of time between her becoming ill and finally dying; ie, she would
> regain her health just enough to *begin* recuperating and then, just as her
> body had replaced the blood previously drawn, the doctors would bleed her
> again!
> And as that was the standard practice, no particular notice of it, *or
> record*, would be taken.
> Doug
>

Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking.. Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we must never give up asking questions...eileen

-
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any evidence for it.
> The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
> What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
> What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > Marie
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.
> >
> > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> >
> > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> >
> > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> >
> > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> >
> > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.
> >
> > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> >
> > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> >
> > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else
> >
> > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors
> >
> > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> >
> > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> >
> > 5) Other unknown cause
> >
> > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> >
> > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.
> >
> > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> >
> > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)
> >
> > Timeline:
> >
> > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)
> >
> > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> >
> > December 22--Isabel dies.
> >
> > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> >
> > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.
> >
> > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> >
> > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> >
> > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> >
> > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.
> >
> > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> >
> > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> >
> > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
> >
> > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> >
> > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely...poor Charles went through absolute torture...I have a book "The Death of Kings"...others too...Fat Henry himself and his son Edward even more..he really suffered ...maybe because they were royalty the doctors tried more and more terrible remedies in the hope of keeping the king alive at all costs.. Death must have been a release. eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And didn't Charles II suffer a similar awful fate?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 15:56
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington andClarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...I remember reading in Secret History Part ll, that people would avoid doctors as much as they could. Probably the poor could not afford them anyway which meant those that could, the upper classes and nobility were probably more likely to die from the treatments that existed at that time. I also recall that the Roman doctors knew more than their medieval counterparts....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and
> > weakened."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > If I remember my history correctly, that exact thing happened to George
> > Washington. He was seriously ill with a respiratory infection and his
> > "doctors" withdrew, I believe, more than one pint of blood! Had they not
> > done so, he might well have lived to see the new century (he died in 1799).
> > *If* Isobel was being treated similarly, that might very well explain the
> > length of time between her becoming ill and finally dying; ie, she would
> > regain her health just enough to *begin* recuperating and then, just as her
> > body had replaced the blood previously drawn, the doctors would bleed her
> > again!
> > And as that was the standard practice, no particular notice of it, *or
> > record*, would be taken.
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group (often also considered barking) I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed to be the truth.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


 

Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking.. Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we must never give up asking questions...eileen

-
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any evidence for it.
> The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
> What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
> What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > Marie
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.
> >
> > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> >
> > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> >
> > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> >
> > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> >
> > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.
> >
> > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> >
> > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> >
> > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else
> >
> > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors
> >
> > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> >
> > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> >
> > 5) Other unknown cause
> >
> > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> >
> > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.
> >
> > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> >
> > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)
> >
> > Timeline:
> >
> > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)
> >
> > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> >
> > December 22--Isabel dies.
> >
> > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> >
> > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.
> >
> > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> >
> > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> >
> > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> >
> > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.
> >
> > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> >
> > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> >
> > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
> >
> > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> >
> > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, we occasionally yearn to go back to then but I think we'd have needed the Tardis handy. Of course most of us would have been left to die in the straw but it might have been preferable and certainly swifter.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 0:04
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington andClarence (not genealogy)


 

Absolutely...poor Charles went through absolute torture...I have a book "The Death of Kings"...others too...Fat Henry himself and his son Edward even more..he really suffered ...maybe because they were royalty the doctors tried more and more terrible remedies in the hope of keeping the king alive at all costs.. Death must have been a release. eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And didn't Charles II suffer a similar awful fate?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 15:56
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington andClarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...I remember reading in Secret History Part ll, that people would avoid doctors as much as they could. Probably the poor could not afford them anyway which meant those that could, the upper classes and nobility were probably more likely to die from the treatments that existed at that time. I also recall that the Roman doctors knew more than their medieval counterparts....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Plus, it was still common to bleed a patient. No wonder they were frail and
> > weakened."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > If I remember my history correctly, that exact thing happened to George
> > Washington. He was seriously ill with a respiratory infection and his
> > "doctors" withdrew, I believe, more than one pint of blood! Had they not
> > done so, he might well have lived to see the new century (he died in 1799).
> > *If* Isobel was being treated similarly, that might very well explain the
> > length of time between her becoming ill and finally dying; ie, she would
> > regain her health just enough to *begin* recuperating and then, just as her
> > body had replaced the blood previously drawn, the doctors would bleed her
> > again!
> > And as that was the standard practice, no particular notice of it, *or
> > record*, would be taken.
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
[snip].
> The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
> What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
> What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.

Carol responds:

Yes, I thought that the long time (more than three months) before George took action was interesting, too--not to mention his taking matters into his own hands rather than trusting the legal system (or Edward), all of which makes it look as if he's lost his senses at this point. Of course, he was also trying (with no chance of succeeding) to marry Mary of Burgundy at this point, which may have called his attention away from the supposed poisoning. (I can't make sense of George's thought process or priorities, actually.)

Do I understand correctly that you think the mysterious John Thuresby may have poisoned both Isabel and baby Richard and framed Ankarette (she's just an old lady, bound to die soon, anyway, so she doesn't matter, in his view)? Any reason for thinking that? (I still think that they were natural deaths, with or without tuberculosis.)

Carol

John Thuresby is described in the indictment as a 'yeoman' of Warwick. All this tells me is that he was probably a member of Clarence's household - his family connections did indeed probably lie elsewhere. There was a Thoresby family in Wensleydale, which had produced an archbishop of York in the past. But there were also gentry/merchant families of the same name in the area of the Wash (Norfolk & Lincs, & specially in Kings Lynn) and in Nottinghamshire. I've made some effort to find documentary evidence of which Thoresby grouping he belonged to but with no success. Clarence had estates in Lincolnshire, but then again the Kingmaker had brought men down with him from Yorkshire.
Marie

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> If it helps at all, Thoresby/Thuresby is a northern or Yorkshire name. The society for the History of Leeds is called the Thoresby Society after an early local historian, and dictionaries of the etymology of names trace it to "Thor" and consequently pinpoint it to Nottinghamshire and areas further north with Viking connections - specifically to a village near Skipton, actually. 
> I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but in the absence of other evidence, this connection might be worth investigating. Skipton belonged to the Clifford family, of whom "Butcher" Clifford was named after wakefield as the murderer of young Edmund. He was killed at Ferrybridge and his heirs disinherited. William Stanley held Skipton Castle and the Lordship of Craven until 1474, when Richard acquired it. 
> --- On Sat, 27/4/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> [snip].
> > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
> > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
> > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, I thought that the long time (more than three months) before George took action was interesting, too--not to mention his taking matters into his own hands rather than trusting the legal system (or Edward), all of which makes it look as if he's lost his senses at this point. Of course, he was also trying (with no chance of succeeding) to marry Mary of Burgundy at this point, which may have called his attention away from the supposed poisoning. (I can't make sense of George's thought process or priorities, actually.)
>
> Do I understand correctly that you think the mysterious John Thuresby may have poisoned both Isabel and baby Richard and framed Ankarette (she's just an old lady, bound to die soon, anyway, so she doesn't matter, in his view)?

No. Read my admittedly rather long and tortuous sentence again.
Marie

Carol earlier:
>
> [snip] The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis). [snip]

Carol again:

That should be "the onset was *slower.*" Why do I always catch my potentially confusing typos after someone else has quoted the post and not before I hit Send?

Carol

Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you say? Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group (often also considered barking) I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed to be the truth.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>
>  
>
> Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking.. Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we must never give up asking questions...eileen
>
> -
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >  
> >
> > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any evidence for it.
> > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and give it to the baby to suck.
> > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe one murder to each of them.
> > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > Marie
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone or something) I don't know.
> > >
> > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > >
> > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > >
> > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > >
> > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > >
> > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave to someone else to explain.
> > >
> > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > >
> > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > >
> > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or someone else
> > >
> > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding, tuberculosis, or other factors
> > >
> > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > >
> > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > >
> > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > >
> > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > >
> > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I don't know.
> > >
> > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > >
> > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion of poison in any instance)
> > >
> > > Timeline:
> > >
> > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard (baptised?)
> > >
> > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms, identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > >
> > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > >
> > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > >
> > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in George's service.
> > >
> > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged. John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > >
> > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > >
> > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > >
> > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her grandson's request.
> > >
> > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > >
> > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > >
> > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)
> > >
> > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > >
> > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

You "guys" are starting to win me over.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> say? Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> (often also considered barking)ý I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> to be the truth.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> must never give up asking questions...eileen
> >
> > -
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > > ýýý
> > >
> > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> evidence for it.
> > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> give it to the baby to suck.
> > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> one murder to each of them.
> > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> or something) I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > >
> > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > >
> > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > >
> > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > >
> > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> to someone else to explain.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > >
> > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> someone else
> > > >
> > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > >
> > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > >
> > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > >
> > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > >
> > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> don't know.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > >
> > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> of poison in any instance)
> > > >
> > > > Timeline:
> > > >
> > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> (baptised?)
> > > >
> > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > >
> > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > >
> > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > >
> > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> George's service.
> > > >
> > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > >
> > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > >
> > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > >
> > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> grandson's request.
> > > >
> > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > >
> > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > >
> > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > >
> > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

AJ you better get in quick....the top posts are going fast...I wonder how much it would cost to have three t shirts made...."Save The Clarence One"....? :0)

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> You "guys" are starting to win me over.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > say? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > to be the truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > >
> > > -
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > evidence for it.
> > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > one murder to each of them.
> > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > or something) I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > >
> > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > >
> > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > >
> > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > to someone else to explain.
> > > > >
> > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > someone else
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > of poison in any instance)
> > > > >
> > > > > Timeline:
> > > > >
> > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > (baptised?)
> > > > >
> > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > >
> > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > >
> > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > George's service.
> > > > >
> > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > >
> > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > grandson's request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > >
> > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > >
> > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

EileenB wrote:


"Another interesting post Douglas...re your comment below reminded me of
something I have read in the Hicks book...
"One is reminded of the chronicler's (Croyland) observations......concerning
the relations of the king and duke.....'you might then have seen (as such
men are generally to be found in the courts of all princes), flatterers
running to and fro, from the one side to the other, and carrying backwards
and forwards the words which had falen from the two brothers, even if they
had happened to be spoken in the most secret closet'..."
Whew...what a nest or vipers...Hicks goes on to say "Talebearers told tales
to the king in spite of their ties of loyalty to the duke. What Clarence
uttered in private might well be unsuitable for Edward's ear. It might even
constitute treason by words. From his intimates exclusive loyalty was
required. If it was not forthcoming, vengeance might be swift and
drastic...." . The Wydeville star was rising...
I think there were some that deserted Clarence like rats deserting a sinking
ship. Although flawed in some ways, as we all are, I dont think he was as
bad as has been painted and to say that he was mad, bad or simply a drunk is
too simplistic although he may well have let his tongue run away with him
when he had imbibed a tad too much. Who knows...
Ive really enjoyed Hick's book in the main....and found him very fair with
his summing up of George...too bad he could not apply this fairness to
George's brother....very strange."

Doug here:
Thank you for the compliment and especially for the excerpt from Hicks.
I wonder if that "talebearing" was before or *after* the birth of Edward's
first son? Or both? I don't suppose Hicks provides any names for those
"talebearers"? Were they servants, hangers-on in George's entourage (for
want of a better term) or did they include some considered by George to be
his "friends"?
I must say, however, that George requiring "exclusive loyalty" from his
intimates would only be natural in a political system where opposition to
royal policy could be construed as, or more importantly, made to appear to
be, treason.
That phrase "...vengeance might be swift and drastic..." would explain what
happened to Ankarette Twynyho, wouldn't it? She was someone George, and
Isobel, had trusted and, somehow, George got the idea that Ankarette was
behind the deaths of Isobel and Richard and his vengeance *was* drastic.
Doesn't answer the question of whether Ankarette was deliberately "framed"
by someone or if George just did go off the rails on the death of his wife,
however, so we're back to square one.
I don't think I'd have survived very long back then, I enjoy talking too
much...
Doug

Marie wrote:


//snip//
"It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering when
something else got her."

Doug here:
Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I have
as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can understand
them myself!
So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because she
was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the same
disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
Doug

Thanks for this, Marie - at least we know then that George was not directly accusing anyone connected to Richard's household of any involvement! 

--- On Sun, 28/4/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
To:
Date: Sunday, 28 April, 2013, 0:27
















 









John Thuresby is described in the indictment as a 'yeoman' of Warwick. All this tells me is that he was probably a member of Clarence's household - his family connections did indeed probably lie elsewhere. There was a Thoresby family in Wensleydale, which had produced an archbishop of York in the past. But there were also gentry/merchant families of the same name in the area of the Wash (Norfolk & Lincs, & specially in Kings Lynn) and in Nottinghamshire. I've made some effort to find documentary evidence of which Thoresby grouping he belonged to but with no success. Clarence had estates in Lincolnshire, but then again the Kingmaker had brought men down with him from Yorkshire.

Marie



--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

>

> If it helps at all, Thoresby/Thuresby is a northern or Yorkshire name. The society for the History of Leeds is called the Thoresby Society after an early local historian, and dictionaries of the etymology of names trace it to "Thor" and consequently pinpoint it to Nottinghamshire and areas further north with Viking connections - specifically to a village near Skipton, actually. 

> I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but in the absence of other evidence, this connection might be worth investigating. Skipton belonged to the Clifford family, of whom "Butcher" Clifford was named after wakefield as the murderer of young Edmund. He was killed at Ferrybridge and his heirs disinherited. William Stanley held Skipton Castle and the Lordship of Craven until 1474, when Richard acquired it. 

> --- On Sat, 27/4/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>

>

> Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family, assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does anyone remember where we read that?)

>

>

> .

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Pertussis (whooping cough) has reared its head again here in the States
among infants, vaccinated & un-vaccinated - as it does periodically. The
highest mortality rate is in infants under the age of one. If you are
correct in that Isabel's infant would have had a wet-nurse, that wet-nurse
had at least one other child who might have harbored infection.

There are just a lot of possibilities, I'm afraid.

A J


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
>
> "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> when
> something else got her."
>
> Doug here:
> Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> have
> as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can understand
> them myself!
> So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because she
> was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the same
> disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> Doug
>
>
>

Carol wrote:


"Yes, I thought that the long time (more than three months) before George
took action was interesting, too--not to mention his taking matters into his
own hands rather than trusting the legal system (or Edward), all of which
makes it look as if he's lost his senses at this point. Of course, he was
also trying (with no chance of succeeding) to marry Mary of Burgundy at this
point, which may have called his attention away from the supposed poisoning.
(I can't make sense of George's thought process or priorities, actually.)
//snip//

Doug here:
Perhaps the trouble with George (title for his bio?) boiled down to the fact
that it was George who was heir to throne - and not the other way 'round? It
would certainly explain almost all of George's actions, as well as Edward's
seeming distrust of his brother. Especially if George had trouble keeping
his views about it to himself!
Would a marriage to Mary of Burgundy have placed George on a close-to-equal
footing with Edward? Would George have gone to Burgundy or Mary brought to
England? If it was the former, then *that's* why Edward opposed it: such a
marriage could put George
in a position to challenge Edward.
It's just a thought, but what if someone whispered into George's ear
something along the lines of: "Why does your brother oppose a most suitable
marriage for you? It's as if he's afraid of you and will stop at nothing to
prevent you from taking your rightful place...", with that "nothing" being
an understood reference to the deaths of Isobel and Richard? Would something
such as that help explain the time-lag between Isobel's death and George's
"vengeance"?
As to *why* George thought he should be king - you got me there!
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> Perhaps the trouble with George (title for his bio?) boiled down to the
> fact
that it was George who was heir to throne

Ooh, good point. If the pre-contract was real then whether George knew it
or not, *Edward* knew George was next in line and therefore a potential
threat. But then, by executing George, he made Richard his heir....

A J, tuberculosis is back too! It would be interesting to know the number of infections of both in the population in England during the time of Richard III. I know that is not possible, but it was probably more common than we know. And imagine the sheer number of people with whom they interacted, from their own families, to fellow nobles, servants, armies, etc.
In another interesting factoid, we are watching a British series called "Waking the Dead". The one we watched this weekend was about a body found in an excavation of an old burial site in London. The pathologist and archaeologist were comparing notes, and stated the difference in the bones of contemporary vs. 400+ year old remains, and how much of the bone had decomposed in the older remains. I know this is television, but it made me think of all our many questions about the spinal bones and the suppositions of Dr. Appleby. Sorry, off topic, but we are still grappling with so many questions about the remains, while the external grapple is how to reinter Richard. I want more answers before the reinterment.
This is such a complex story, and so much needs to be studied. I wonder if a lot of the Ricardian questions, wishes, and hopes might be swept through quickly, to get the reinterment out of the way.

On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:31 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Pertussis (whooping cough) has reared its head again here in the States
> among infants, vaccinated & un-vaccinated - as it does periodically. The
> highest mortality rate is in infants under the age of one. If you are
> correct in that Isabel's infant would have had a wet-nurse, that wet-nurse
> had at least one other child who might have harbored infection.
>
> There are just a lot of possibilities, I'm afraid.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
> destama@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> Marie wrote:
>>
>> //snip//
>>
>> "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
>> brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
>> Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
>> Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
>> Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
>> when
>> something else got her."
>>
>> Doug here:
>> Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
>> have
>> as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can understand
>> them myself!
>> So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because she
>> was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the same
>> disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
>> something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
>> infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
>> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

And me. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
Sender:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)

You "guys" are starting to win me over.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> say? Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> to be the truth.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> must never give up asking questions...eileen
> >
> > -
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> evidence for it.
> > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> give it to the baby to suck.
> > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> one murder to each of them.
> > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> or something) I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > >
> > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > >
> > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > >
> > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > >
> > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> to someone else to explain.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > >
> > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> someone else
> > > >
> > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > >
> > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > >
> > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > >
> > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > >
> > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> don't know.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > >
> > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> of poison in any instance)
> > > >
> > > > Timeline:
> > > >
> > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> (baptised?)
> > > >
> > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > >
> > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > >
> > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > >
> > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> George's service.
> > > >
> > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > >
> > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > >
> > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > >
> > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> grandson's request.
> > > >
> > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > >
> > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > >
> > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > >
> > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....

Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...

Oh dear.....



--- In , "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> And me. Regards. Coral
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> Sender:
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
> You "guys" are starting to win me over.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > say? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > to be the truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > >
> > > -
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > evidence for it.
> > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > one murder to each of them.
> > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > or something) I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > >
> > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > >
> > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > >
> > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > to someone else to explain.
> > > > >
> > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > someone else
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > of poison in any instance)
> > > > >
> > > > > Timeline:
> > > > >
> > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > (baptised?)
> > > > >
> > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > >
> > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > >
> > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > George's service.
> > > > >
> > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > >
> > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > grandson's request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > >
> > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > >
> > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Doug...Hicks does not actually name anyone specifically with regard to *talebearers* BUT he does name three people who refused George's request for help in getting his son to Burgundy. Roger Harewell, Master John Tapton and the Abbot of Tewkesbury.

'Roger Harewell was a prominent Worcestershire esquire and member of a family traditionally loyal to the Earls of Warwick. If the act (of attainder) is to be believed he was also a member of Clarence's household.

John Strensham's abbey of Tewkesbury was in the patronage of the DoC as Lord Despenser. He (George) had given it the manors of Kinver and Stourton and obtained licences for it to receive lands in mortmain. His son Richard was born in the infirmary, the abbot had confirmed his son Edward and his wife Isobel had been interred in the abbey choir. Abbot Strensham had a genuine tie with the duke and is a surprising traitor.

Even more astonishing is the defection of Master John Tapton, one of three brothers who had served the duke. ....John had been Clarence's chancellor in 1462-68 and probably remained in office subsequently"..

Something must have persuaded people like this to desert George...but we can only guess...eileen


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Doug here:
> Thank you for the compliment and especially for the excerpt from Hicks.
> I wonder if that "talebearing" was before or *after* the birth of Edward's
> first son? Or both? I don't suppose Hicks provides any names for those
> "talebearers"? Were they servants, hangers-on in George's entourage (for
> want of a better term) or did they include some considered by George to be
> his "friends"?
>
>
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
>
> //snip//
> "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering when
> something else got her."
>
> Doug here:
> Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I have
> as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can understand
> them myself!
> So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because she
> was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the same
> disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> Doug
>

I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest, and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also, Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after all.
Marie

Or was she there because she was already ill?

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> >
> > //snip//
> > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> when
> > something else got her."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> have
> > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> understand
> > them myself!
> > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> she
> > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> same
> > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > Doug
> >
>
> I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> all.
> Marie
>
>
>

Marie ...Ive often wondered about that....do you think she went into premature labour? eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
- Isabel probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after all.
> Marie
>

Didn't Edward then suggest Anthony Lord Rivers for Mary of Burgundy? That really must have annoyed Clarence.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....
>
> Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...
>
> Oh dear.....
>
>
>
> --- In , "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> >
> > And me. Regards. Coral
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > Sender:
> > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> > To: <>
> > Reply-To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> > You "guys" are starting to win me over.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > > say? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > > to be the truth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > > evidence for it.
> > > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > > one murder to each of them.
> > > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > > or something) I don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > > to someone else to explain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > > someone else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > > don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > > of poison in any instance)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Timeline:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > > (baptised?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > > George's service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > > grandson's request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

Just returned - I'm sure there are enough offices for all!! 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 21:05
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)


 

OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....

Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...

Oh dear.....

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> And me. Regards. Coral
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> Sender: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
> You "guys" are starting to win me over.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > say? Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > to be the truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > >
> > > -
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > evidence for it.
> > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > one murder to each of them.
> > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > or something) I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > >
> > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > >
> > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > >
> > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > to someone else to explain.
> > > > >
> > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > someone else
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > of poison in any instance)
> > > > >
> > > > > Timeline:
> > > > >
> > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > (baptised?)
> > > > >
> > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > >
> > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > >
> > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > George's service.
> > > > >
> > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > >
> > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > >
> > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > grandson's request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > >
> > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > >
> > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

The whole Burgundy episode doesn't show Edward in a good light, does it? At the same time that he'd got George locked up and was about to despatch him he refused help to recently bereaved Margaret and it was left to Will Hastings to try to help her secretly from Calais to fight off the French.
When Edward found out he recalled Hastings. Not exactly the most loving brother was he? Wonder what Richard thought of that?

  

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 23:03
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

Didn't Edward then suggest Anthony Lord Rivers for Mary of Burgundy? That really must have annoyed Clarence.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....
>
> Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...
>
> Oh dear.....
>
>
>
> --- In , "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> >
> > And me. Regards. Coral
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > Sender:
> > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> > To: <>
> > Reply-To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> >
> > You "guys" are starting to win me over.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > > say? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > > to be the truth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > > evidence for it.
> > > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > > one murder to each of them.
> > > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > > or something) I don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > > to someone else to explain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > > someone else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > > don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > > of poison in any instance)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Timeline:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > > (baptised?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > > George's service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > > grandson's request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)


> The whole Burgundy episode doesn't show Edward in a good light, does it?
At the same time that he'd got George locked up and was about to despatch
him he refused help to recently bereaved Margaret and it was left to Will
Hastings to try to help her secretly from Calais to fight off the French.
When Edward found out he recalled Hastings. Not exactly the most loving
brother was he? Wonder what Richard thought of that?

Is it possible Hastings had finally turned against Edward - with
justification - and this led to whatever Richard found out or believed which
led to Hastings' death?

i think there was an article in the Ricardian about that. I am pretty sure that Richard was somehow involved with Hastings. Can't check because my Ricardians are all packed away. It may have been the Bulletin.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The whole Burgundy episode doesn't show Edward in a good light, does it? At the same time that he'd got George locked up and was about to despatch him he refused help to recently bereaved Margaret and it was left to Will Hastings to try to help her secretly from Calais to fight off the French.
> When Edward found out he recalled Hastings. Not exactly the most loving brother was he? Wonder what Richard thought of that?
>
>   
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 23:03
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> Didn't Edward then suggest Anthony Lord Rivers for Mary of Burgundy? That really must have annoyed Clarence.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....
> >
> > Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...
> >
> > Oh dear.....
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And me. Regards. Coral
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > Sender:
> > > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> > > To: <>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > > You "guys" are starting to win me over.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > > > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > > > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > > > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > > > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > > > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > > > say? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > > > (often also considered barking)Â I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > > > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > > > to be the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > > > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > > > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > > > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > > > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > > > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > > > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > > > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > > > evidence for it.
> > > > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > > > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > > > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > > > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > > > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > > > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > > > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > > > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > > > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > > > one murder to each of them.
> > > > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > > > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > > > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > > > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > > > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > > > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > > > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > > > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > > > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > > > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > > > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > > > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > > > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > > > or something) I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > > > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > > > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > > > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > > > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > > > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > > > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > > > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > > > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > > > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > > > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > > > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > > > to someone else to explain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > > > someone else
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > > > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > > > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > > > don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > > > of poison in any instance)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Timeline:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > > > (baptised?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > > > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > > > George's service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > > > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > > > grandson's request.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > > > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > > > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > > > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > > > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > > > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > > > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > > > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > > > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > > > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > > > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > > > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > > > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The infirmary was intended for the monks - this wasn't a general hospital; she was probably put in the abbot's own private suite in the infirmary when she went into labour. And if she was ill, why make her travel all that way? The Clarences would have had the best doctors at Warwick.
The Abbey chronicle gives us no information about how she happened to give birth there, but actually that's what interests me. They give precise info about the time of birth, the christening, and when she was taken back to Warwick, but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due. From heralds' accounts we know that for queens this was a big ceremonial affair, and I'm sure that it would have been quite a cause for pomp in the case of a duchess. My conclusion is that Isabel didn't get a chance to "take the chamber" because the baby arrived unexpectedly early, catching her off guard during a visit to the Abbey, of which she was patron.
Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
Marie

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Or was she there because she was already ill?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > //snip//
> > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > when
> > > something else got her."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > have
> > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > understand
> > > them myself!
> > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > she
> > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > same
> > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > all.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

What you say makes sense, and certainly suggests that the baby was arriving
prematurely.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> The infirmary was intended for the monks - this wasn't a general hospital;
> she was probably put in the abbot's own private suite in the infirmary when
> she went into labour. And if she was ill, why make her travel all that way?
> The Clarences would have had the best doctors at Warwick.
> The Abbey chronicle gives us no information about how she happened to give
> birth there, but actually that's what interests me. They give precise info
> about the time of birth, the christening, and when she was taken back to
> Warwick, but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the
> Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due. From
> heralds' accounts we know that for queens this was a big ceremonial affair,
> and I'm sure that it would have been quite a cause for pomp in the case of
> a duchess. My conclusion is that Isabel didn't get a chance to "take the
> chamber" because the baby arrived unexpectedly early, catching her off
> guard during a visit to the Abbey, of which she was patron.
> Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal
> fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off
> more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> Marie
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> Stamate"
> > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > //snip//
> > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval
> midwives
> > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us
> that
> > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to
> Prince
> > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was
> recovering
> > > when
> > > > something else got her."
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's
> "insights" I
> > > have
> > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > understand
> > > > them myself!
> > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died
> because
> > > she
> > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > same
> > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies
> to
> > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies
> are not
> > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to
> suggest,
> > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with -
> Isabel
> > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery,
> after
> > > all.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

When George was in France with Warwick, wasn't it decided that after the deaths of Edward IV and Edward, Prince of Wales, George was next in line to be king?

Hence, since the Prince of Wales was dead, George's twisty mind may have thought he was entitled to the throne, regardless it was occupied by his brother. And given that old rumor that Edward IV wasn't Richard of York's son....

The problem was obviously Edward -- always Edward. So mean of him to refuse to make way for his much more qualified, magnificent, and deserving brother.

~Weds

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
.
.
.
<snipped>

> As to *why* George thought he should be king - you got me there!
> Doug

Is there a possibility that Isabel had a history of premature births? For example we know predicted birth dates were more difficult to be accurate then, but she gave birth off Calais to the stillborn child. Would the family really have taken her with them if she was that 'due'? I know they were fleeing but Edward had no record of hurting women and she could have taken Sanctuary like EW was to do a little later. Never really gave it much thought before.

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 0:04
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

The infirmary was intended for the monks - this wasn't a general hospital; she was probably put in the abbot's own private suite in the infirmary when she went into labour. And if she was ill, why make her travel all that way? The Clarences would have had the best doctors at Warwick.
The Abbey chronicle gives us no information about how she happened to give birth there, but actually that's what interests me. They give precise info about the time of birth, the christening, and when she was taken back to Warwick, but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due. From heralds' accounts we know that for queens this was a big ceremonial affair, and I'm sure that it would have been quite a cause for pomp in the case of a duchess. My conclusion is that Isabel didn't get a chance to "take the chamber" because the baby arrived unexpectedly early, catching her off guard during a visit to the Abbey, of which she was patron.
Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
Marie

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Or was she there because she was already ill?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > //snip//
> > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > when
> > > something else got her."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > have
> > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > understand
> > > them myself!
> > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > she
> > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > same
> > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > all.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks I'll have a hunt



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 23:52
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

i think there was an article in the Ricardian about that. I am pretty sure that Richard was somehow involved with Hastings. Can't check because my Ricardians are all packed away. It may have been the Bulletin.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The whole Burgundy episode doesn't show Edward in a good light, does it? At the same time that he'd got George locked up and was about to despatch him he refused help to recently bereaved Margaret and it was left to Will Hastings to try to help her secretly from Calais to fight off the French.
> When Edward found out he recalled Hastings. Not exactly the most loving brother was he? Wonder what Richard thought of that?
>
>   
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 23:03
> Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
>  
>
> Didn't Edward then suggest Anthony Lord Rivers for Mary of Burgundy? That really must have annoyed Clarence.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > OMG! that is now 4 tee shirts....
> >
> > Referring back to the gentleman in question, our George, someone (I think Carol but I cannot find relevant post now) mentioned that the marriage between Mary of Burgundy and George proposed by his sister Margaret Dowager Duchess of Burgundy was 'opposed and thwarted' by Edward. This was not the only marriage that was put a stop to by Edward. King James lll of Scotland suggested that his sister Margaret should wed George...Edward declined this on the grounds that George was still mourning his first wife...How thoughtful of him. Hicks says "It is difficult from this to envisage a marriage that Edward would have approved. Isobel's death had introduced a new instability into the relations between the brothers". The CC wrote "The indignation of the duke was probably *still* further increased by this and now each begun to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes"...
> >
> > Oh dear.....
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And me. Regards. Coral
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > Sender:
> > > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:12:53
> > > To: <>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > >
> > > You "guys" are starting to win me over.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, EileenB
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hilary...re your membership of the rare George of Clarence Support Group
> > > > may I enquire how many members the group has?....If it is as I suspect only
> > > > one i.e. you, may I join the group so as to stop any feelings of
> > > > alonemanship you may be experiencing. As this is a fledging group..can we
> > > > chose to be head honchos...i.e. you could be chairwoman and I could be
> > > > ummmm managing director or something of similar importance. What do you
> > > > say? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. As a member of that rare George of Clarence support group
> > > > (often also considered barking)Ã I salute that! It's a bit like Richard and
> > > > the pre-contract, it's not so much what was the truth, but what he believed
> > > > to be the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:59
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> > > > and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã
> > > > >
> > > > > Im very pleased that the possibility that Isobel *may* have been
> > > > poisoned is not being dismissed out of hand and Clarence was barking..
> > > > Maybe we will never be able to get to the truth of what happened but we
> > > > must never give up asking questions...eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 23:16
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho,
> > > > Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four days, okay. Just as good. I'm having to work from memory at
> > > > present as I'm confinced to husband's laptop whilst my computer is in for
> > > > repair. Your link on puerperal fever is interesting and confirms that
> > > > Isabel could well have had it and recovered.
> > > > > > I'm not personally convinced of the TB theory - I just don't see any
> > > > evidence for it.
> > > > > > The indictment of Ankarette & Thuresby does give the date that T. is
> > > > supposed to have poisoned baby Richard. As I recall it was only a day or so
> > > > before Isabel's death, which is interesting. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle
> > > > also gives us the details of the baby's christening.
> > > > > > I don't see that it is too difficult to imagine how the baby would
> > > > have been fed a smidgin of ale. You simply dip your finger in the drink and
> > > > give it to the baby to suck.
> > > > > > What I wonder is whether Clarence believed that, seeing Isabel
> > > > recovering from the first (imagined) bout of poison, Thuresby gave her a
> > > > second dose, feeding some to the baby at the same time, but in order to
> > > > have both him and Ankarette condemned it worked better for him to ascribe
> > > > one murder to each of them.
> > > > > > What is interesting to me is that Clarence didn't take any action
> > > > against these supposed poisoners until Easter.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
> > > > <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Childbirth fever can be quite long drawn out - my grandmother took
> > > > five weeks to die, though I agree that Isabel died an unusually long time
> > > > after her baby's birth. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle confirms that she
> > > > was already very sick when she was brought back to Warwick. The fatal drink
> > > > was supposedly delivered about three days after the birth, which I've been
> > > > told is a typical timelag before the start of childbirth fever.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Four days--the baby was born on October 6 and the poisoned ale
> > > > supposedly administered on October 10, which suggests that she had a more
> > > > or less normal delivery, started to recover, then her symptoms began to set
> > > > in about four days later. Whether George began to suspect poison
> > > > immediately or only after she died (or perhaps after both she and the baby
> > > > died, at which point he would begin to feel especially targeted by someone
> > > > or something) I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The very interesting article I linked to earlier on puerperal fever
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820499-X.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > says that there are two types, epidemic (caused by doctors
> > > > delivering babies with unwashed hands after exposure to patients with
> > > > various diseases, not applicable in the fifteenth century) and sporadic
> > > > cases. The death rate from sporadic cases was much lower, 35 percent as
> > > > opposed to 80 percent; the onset was lower, and the illness was more
> > > > prolonged (all of which could apply to Isabel, especially if we factor in
> > > > the use of leeches or complications of tuberculosis).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The symptoms almost always begin with violent shivering, followed by
> > > > rapid pulse, high fever, and excruciating abdominal pain. Ironically, near
> > > > the end, there was often a cessation of pain that signaled not recovery but
> > > > impending death. The author calls it "an exceptionally cruel and dreadful
> > > > disease that came suddenly and unexpectedly . . . often when the mother was
> > > > rejoicing at the successful birth of her baby." Altogether heartbreaking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How closely these symptoms resemble those of poisoning, I'll leave
> > > > to someone else to explain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At any rate, here's what we have as far as I can determine:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible causes of Isabel's death:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of Ankarette Twynyho (George's theory) or
> > > > someone else
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Sporadic puerperal fever perhaps complicated by bleeding,
> > > > tuberculosis, or other factors
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Tuberculosis aggravated by childbirth(?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4) Eclampsia or some other disorder that attacks new mothers(?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5) Other unknown cause
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible causes of the baby's death:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Poisoning at the hands of John Thuresby (or someone else)--though
> > > > how you can poison a nursing infant without poisoning the wet nurse, I
> > > > don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Prematurity (he had a stillborn brother)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Other unknown illness (Cecily lost five babies with no suggestion
> > > > of poison in any instance)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Timeline:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > October 6, 1476--Isabel gives birth to a boy named Richard
> > > > (baptised?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > October 10--Presumed date for the appearance of Isabel's symptoms,
> > > > identified by George as the date of the poisoning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > December 22--Isabel dies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > January 1, 1477--Baby Richard dies. (Onset of illness unknown.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > April 12--Ankarette Twynyho seized by Roger Strugge and other men in
> > > > George's service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > April 15--Ankarette found guilty of poisoning Isabel and hanged.
> > > > John Thuresby executed at the same time for killing the baby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Late June--George arrested and put in the Tower.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > February 14, 1478--George executed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > February 20--Ankarette retrospectively pardoned by Edward 1V at her
> > > > grandson's request.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Between February 27 and March 5--Stillington arrested.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > June 20--Stillington pardoned and released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, George's activities before Isabel's death might provide a
> > > > clue as to who other than the Woodvilles might want to harm his family,
> > > > assuming that the deaths resulted from poison. (No one was aiming at
> > > > Richard at this time.) We also need to know who John Thuresby was and how a
> > > > man would have access to an infant (why not suspect the wet nurse or dry
> > > > nurse?) and whether the Woodvilles had any connection to Ankarette. (Does
> > > > anyone remember where we read that?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At this point, my view is the usual Ricardian one. The precontract
> > > > was real; Stillington told George about it; George was executed and
> > > > Stillington imprisoned for that reason; George's death silenced Stillington
> > > > for the moment. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with Isabel's
> > > > death, which I think was from cause number 2 or the baby's death, which I
> > > > think was from cause 2 or 3 (or both).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My humble apologies for the length of this post, which has taken me
> > > > hours to compose. Thanks to anyone who reached the end of it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

George was heir at the time; Edward hadn't a son. And there is a chance that he could have known about the pre-contract through the Warwicks, or indeed their mutual lawyer Catesby. I don't think George ever claimed he was more magnificent, just entitled.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 

When George was in France with Warwick, wasn't it decided that after the deaths of Edward IV and Edward, Prince of Wales, George was next in line to be king?

Hence, since the Prince of Wales was dead, George's twisty mind may have thought he was entitled to the throne, regardless it was occupied by his brother. And given that old rumor that Edward IV wasn't Richard of York's son....

The problem was obviously Edward -- always Edward. So mean of him to refuse to make way for his much more qualified, magnificent, and deserving brother.

~Weds

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
.
.
.
<snipped>

> As to *why* George thought he should be king - you got me there!
> Doug

Claire M Jordan wrote:


"Ooh, good point (George being Edward's heir). If the pre-contract was real
then whether George knew it or not, *Edward* knew George was next in line
and therefore a potential threat. But then, by executing George, he made
Richard his heir...."

Doug here:
And Edward trusted Richard who, as best we can determine, was always loyal
to Edward. Certainly Richard never went trotting after Warwick, desperately
trying to be made king (or heir to Edward of Lancaster). What happened to
the Countess of Warwick is another example of Edward's fear of what George
might get up to, provided he had enough backing; ie, lands and manors that
could provide a ready-made army capable of challenging Edward.
The more I look at it, the more I think Edward was expecting time to solve
his problem by his out-living the one other remaining person who knew about
the marriage.
Stillington was at least a decade older than Edward and seems to not have
had a reputation for being physically robust. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons Stillington, apparently, didn't travel around his diocese; he was
expending his energies on his assignments from Edward and felt, rightly or
wrongly, that he couldn't do both?
Doug

When you look at Stillington's connections into the Somerset gentry, MPs and lawyers Edward was taking a tremendous risk. Let alone the fact that until 1477 Clarence was just up the road. But perhaps that sums up Edward - arrogance, or a belief he was lucky? Charismatic people often think they are.
 
 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 


Claire M Jordan wrote:

"Ooh, good point (George being Edward's heir). If the pre-contract was real
then whether George knew it or not, *Edward* knew George was next in line
and therefore a potential threat. But then, by executing George, he made
Richard his heir...."

Doug here:
And Edward trusted Richard who, as best we can determine, was always loyal
to Edward. Certainly Richard never went trotting after Warwick, desperately
trying to be made king (or heir to Edward of Lancaster). What happened to
the Countess of Warwick is another example of Edward's fear of what George
might get up to, provided he had enough backing; ie, lands and manors that
could provide a ready-made army capable of challenging Edward.
The more I look at it, the more I think Edward was expecting time to solve
his problem by his out-living the one other remaining person who knew about
the marriage.
Stillington was at least a decade older than Edward and seems to not have
had a reputation for being physically robust. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons Stillington, apparently, didn't travel around his diocese; he was
expending his energies on his assignments from Edward and felt, rightly or
wrongly, that he couldn't do both?
Doug

EileenB wrote:


"Doug...Hicks does not actually name anyone specifically with regard to
*talebearers* BUT he does name three people who refused George's request for
help in getting his son to Burgundy. Roger Harewell, Master John Tapton and
the Abbot of Tewkesbury.
'Roger Harewell was a prominent Worcestershire esquire and member of a
family traditionally loyal to the Earls of Warwick. If the act (of
attainder) is to be believed he was also a member of Clarence's household.
John Strensham's abbey of Tewkesbury was in the patronage of the DoC as Lord
Despenser. He (George) had given it the manors of Kinver and Stourton and
obtained licences for it to receive lands in mortmain. His son Richard was
born in the infirmary, the abbot had confirmed his son Edward and his wife
Isobel had been interred in the abbey choir. Abbot Strensham had a genuine
tie with the duke and is a surprising traitor.
Even more astonishing is the defection of Master John Tapton, one of three
brothers who had served the duke. ....John had been Clarence's chancellor
in 1462-68 and probably remained in office subsequently"..
Something must have persuaded people like this to desert George...but we can
only guess..."

Doug here:
An Abbot, a prominent member of the Worcesterchire gentry known as a
supporter of the Warwicks and someone who, at one time and possibly still,
was George's "chancellor"? Would Tapton, as George's "Chancellor" been in
charge of George's legal affairs, just as the Lord Chancellor in London was
in charge of the country's?
In other words, would Tapton have been in a position, through his position
and/or training to know that Edward of Warwick's position as fourth in line
to throne trumped any fears for his son's safety that George may have had?
And that sending Edward out of England, without the king's consent
constituted treason?
George, of course, may just not have cared, presuming *he* could always
count on Edward's forebearance - without giving a thought to whether that
"forebearance" would be extended to the actions of the Abbot and the
others...
George may not have been a drunken sot, but I do tend to believe he was
incredibly self-centered; a proto-type for the "Me generation" perhaps?
Doug

Marie wrote:


"The infirmary was intended for the monks - this wasn't a general hospital;
she was probably put in the abbot's own private suite in the infirmary when
she went into labour. And if she was ill, why make her travel all that way?
The Clarences would have had the best doctors at Warwick.
The Abbey chronicle gives us no information about how she happened to give
birth there, but actually that's what interests me. They give precise info
about the time of birth, the christening, and when she was taken back to
Warwick, but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the
Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due. From
heralds' accounts we know that for queens this was a big ceremonial affair,
and I'm sure that it would have been quite a cause for pomp in the case of a
duchess. My conclusion is that Isabel didn't get a chance to "take the
chamber" because the baby arrived unexpectedly early, catching her off guard
during a visit to the Abbey, of which she was patron.
Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal
fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more
quickly than otherwise, not more slowly."

Doug here:
Just what would the difference between a "stillborn" child and a
"miscarriage" be? Would it be that in the case of the former the child was
developed physically enough to survive, but for whatever reason(s), didn't
and the latter would be when the child simply hadn't developed enough to
survive at all?
Even though the Infirmary was for the *monks*, and not the general
population, perhaps its' mere existence was partly behind Isobel's risking a
visit there while pregnant? We know she had one still-born child, but that
might have been put down to the physical conditions Isobel was in at that
time. Do we know whether Isobel had suffered any suffered miscarriages?
Could it be that Isobel felt she was far enough along to *not* miscarry and
not *that* close to giving birth, so she felt safe enough to visit
Tewksbury?
It would certainly make more sense to presume Isobel gave birth prematurely
when visiting Tewksbury, especially as the Clarence seat wasn't *that* far
away and I think I'm safe in saying the the Abbot and monks would have
understood her not visiting if she thought she was that close to giving
birth!
A premature delivery could also support little Richard's death being from
natural causes; he'd already had to struggle to stay alive and just hadn't
yet gotten strong enough to fight off an infection from whatever cause.
It could also help explain George's reaction to his son's death: Richard had
been born prematurely, struggled to survive and, just as he seemed to be
getting better, died. That his death occurred right after his mother's only
helped fuel George's, real or imagined, fears. I'm still undetermined about
whether anyone helped feed those fears.
Doug.

I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.


> Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> Marie
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > //snip//
> > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > when
> > > > something else got her."
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > have
> > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > understand
> > > > them myself!
> > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > she
> > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > same
> > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > all.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)

> But perhaps that sums up Edward - arrogance, or a belief he was lucky?

Only had enough blood to operate his brain or his dick, but not both at
once.

If indeed there was a pre-contract and Stillington did the deed, then it must have been far too close for comfort. And it would surely only be a matter of time before George found out 
 
The Catesbys had been lawyers to the Warwicks since 1400. Sir John Catesby (Will's uncle) was a Justice known to Sir Richard Chokke (Stil's granddaughter's father in law) and Justice of Common Pleas. They went on circuit together at least once. With such a small interwoven community of the Talbots, Cheddars, Chokkes and Catesbys (let alone the Twynyhos) it would surely only be a matter of time before something spilled out in an unguarded moment. Perhaps this had reached 'lowerlings' and they just wanted to keep out of the brewing storm? A wise move.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 16:51
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington and Clarence (not genealogy)

 


EileenB wrote:

"Doug...Hicks does not actually name anyone specifically with regard to
*talebearers* BUT he does name three people who refused George's request for
help in getting his son to Burgundy. Roger Harewell, Master John Tapton and
the Abbot of Tewkesbury.
'Roger Harewell was a prominent Worcestershire esquire and member of a
family traditionally loyal to the Earls of Warwick. If the act (of
attainder) is to be believed he was also a member of Clarence's household.
John Strensham's abbey of Tewkesbury was in the patronage of the DoC as Lord
Despenser. He (George) had given it the manors of Kinver and Stourton and
obtained licences for it to receive lands in mortmain. His son Richard was
born in the infirmary, the abbot had confirmed his son Edward and his wife
Isobel had been interred in the abbey choir. Abbot Strensham had a genuine
tie with the duke and is a surprising traitor.
Even more astonishing is the defection of Master John Tapton, one of three
brothers who had served the duke. ....John had been Clarence's chancellor
in 1462-68 and probably remained in office subsequently"..
Something must have persuaded people like this to desert George...but we can
only guess..."

Doug here:
An Abbot, a prominent member of the Worcesterchire gentry known as a
supporter of the Warwicks and someone who, at one time and possibly still,
was George's "chancellor"? Would Tapton, as George's "Chancellor" been in
charge of George's legal affairs, just as the Lord Chancellor in London was
in charge of the country's?
In other words, would Tapton have been in a position, through his position
and/or training to know that Edward of Warwick's position as fourth in line
to throne trumped any fears for his son's safety that George may have had?
And that sending Edward out of England, without the king's consent
constituted treason?
George, of course, may just not have cared, presuming *he* could always
count on Edward's forebearance - without giving a thought to whether that
"forebearance" would be extended to the actions of the Abbot and the
others...
George may not have been a drunken sot, but I do tend to believe he was
incredibly self-centered; a proto-type for the "Me generation" perhaps?
Doug

wednesday_mc wrote:


"When George was in France with Warwick, wasn't it decided that after the
deaths of Edward IV and Edward, Prince of Wales, George was next in line to
be king?
Hence, since the Prince of Wales was dead, George's twisty mind may have
thought he was entitled to the throne, regardless it was occupied by his
brother. And given that old rumor that Edward IV wasn't Richard of York's
son....
The problem was obviously Edward -- always Edward. So mean of him to refuse
to make way for his much more qualified, magnificent, and deserving
brother."

Doug here:
I'm presuming you meant "...Henry VI and Edward (of Lancaster), Prince of
Wales..."?
And I do agree that George let his being heir to his brother go to his head,
for want of a better term. True, he was younger at the time, but until
Edmund was killed George seems to have been much like Richard in his
attitude toward's Edward.
It may have simply being a case of George being *so* close to the throne and
not being able to accept that, most likely, he'd never sit on it and get on
with his life. It may even have gotten to the point where that throne became
his "Preciousss..." and nothing else mattered.
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:


"When you look at Stillington's connections into the Somerset gentry, MPs
and lawyers Edward was taking a tremendous risk. Let alone the fact that
until 1477 Clarence was just up the road. But perhaps that sums up Edward -
arrogance, or a belief he was lucky? Charismatic people often think they
are."

Doug here:
Or could Stillington have been Edward's "window" into what those "Somerset
gentry, MPs and lawyers" were up to? And perhaps also a sort of "salesman"
for Edward and his policies?
Doug



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)




Claire M Jordan wrote:

"Ooh, good point (George being Edward's heir). If the pre-contract was real
then whether George knew it or not, *Edward* knew George was next in line
and therefore a potential threat. But then, by executing George, he made
Richard his heir...."

Doug here:
And Edward trusted Richard who, as best we can determine, was always loyal
to Edward. Certainly Richard never went trotting after Warwick, desperately
trying to be made king (or heir to Edward of Lancaster). What happened to
the Countess of Warwick is another example of Edward's fear of what George
might get up to, provided he had enough backing; ie, lands and manors that
could provide a ready-made army capable of challenging Edward.
The more I look at it, the more I think Edward was expecting time to solve
his problem by his out-living the one other remaining person who knew about
the marriage.
Stillington was at least a decade older than Edward and seems to not have
had a reputation for being physically robust. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons Stillington, apparently, didn't travel around his diocese; he was
expending his energies on his assignments from Edward and felt, rightly or
wrongly, that he couldn't do both?
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
and Clarence (not genealogy)

> Just what would the difference between a "stillborn" child and a
"miscarriage" be? Would it be that in the case of the former the child was
developed physically enough to survive, but for whatever reason(s), didn't
and the latter would be when the child simply hadn't developed enough to
survive at all?

I would say yes - stillborn children are at or near full-term and then
something goes wrong during or just before the birth. Miscarried children
are born dead *and* noticeably premature.

> A premature delivery could also support little Richard's death being from
natural causes; he'd already had to struggle to stay alive and just hadn't
yet gotten strong enough to fight off an infection from whatever cause.

Especially as premature children often have sub-optimal lungs, yes.

Maybe he had got wind of the precontract? Or maybe he believed for some reason that Edward was truely illigitimate...these rumours about that had been around for some time..? Who knows after all this time...

Whatever was occurring EW , if Mancini is correct, very worried..

According to Mancini "The Queen then remembered the insults to her family and the culumnies with which she had been approached, namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne, unless the DoC were removed and of this she easily persuaded the King.."

I do agree with you that Edward was the problem although I know your kidding :0)..but it all went so very pearshaped when he married into the Woodvilles....Eileen





--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> When George was in France with Warwick, wasn't it decided that after the deaths of Edward IV and Edward, Prince of Wales, George was next in line to be king?
>
> Hence, since the Prince of Wales was dead, George's twisty mind may have thought he was entitled to the throne, regardless it was occupied by his brother. And given that old rumor that Edward IV wasn't Richard of York's son....
>
> The problem was obviously Edward -- always Edward. So mean of him to refuse to make way for his much more qualified, magnificent, and deserving brother.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> <snipped>
>
> > As to *why* George thought he should be king - you got me there!
> > Doug
>

Lol.....

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ankarette Twynyho, Stillington
> and Clarence (not genealogy)
>
> > But perhaps that sums up Edward - arrogance, or a belief he was lucky?
>
> Only had enough blood to operate his brain or his dick, but not both at
> once.
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?

Hi Eileen,
Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
Marie






>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
>
>
> > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > //snip//
> > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > when
> > > > > something else got her."
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > have
> > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > understand
> > > > > them myself!
> > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > she
> > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > same
> > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > all.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Marie...yes..thanks..Im thinking on lines of if Isobel was was near to the approximate birth date she would have been ensconced at Warwick in her prepared chamber safe and snug. Would love to know what went on there...Just checked Tewkesbury to Warwick is a distance of 30 miles...quite a distance for a heavily pregnant (15th century) woman to be a away from home. Im inclined to think that it was through choice..but why? Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?
>
> Hi Eileen,
> Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
> >
> >
> > > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > > when
> > > > > > something else got her."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > them myself!
> > > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > > she
> > > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > > Doug
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > > all.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

What if Clarence was paranoid/or if there was an attempt to harm Edward Earl of Warwick or Clarence was trying to get him away because he believed that someone would try to harm him? If Isabel was near to her time to give birth, would she feel safer having the baby at the infirmary at Tewkesbury rather than trust the people in her own household?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie...yes..thanks..Im thinking on lines of if Isobel was was near to the approximate birth date she would have been ensconced at Warwick in her prepared chamber safe and snug. Would love to know what went on there...Just checked Tewkesbury to Warwick is a distance of 30 miles...quite a distance for a heavily pregnant (15th century) woman to be a away from home. Im inclined to think that it was through choice..but why? Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?
> >
> > Hi Eileen,
> > Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > something else got her."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > them myself!
> > > > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Eileen,

I agree that travelling - even by car - in late pregnancy is not comfortable. But women do seem to have travelled surprising late in the pregnancies back then. Cecily Neville was 6 months gone with George when they travelled all the way to Ireland.
Of course, the Clarences had other residences - Margaret had been born at Farleigh Hungerford castle, for instance, 70 miles the other side of Tewkesbury, so Isabel could have been returning to Warwick from there. Or she may have gone to Tewkesbury to pray at the family shrine for a safe delivery (according to the VCH the Abbey also had a number of holy relics; it doesn't say what they were, but perhaps at least one of these was associated with safety in childbirth). There was another Warwick residence only 8 miles from Tewkesbury, and that was Hanley Castle.
If Isabel was planning to return to Warwick rather than Hanley, I think the Avon was navigable as far as Worcester, so she could have made part of the journey by boat.
Oh, if only these people had kept diaries!
Marie



--- In richardiii


[email protected], "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie...yes..thanks..Im thinking on lines of if Isobel was was near to the approximate birth date she would have been ensconced at Warwick in her prepared chamber safe and snug. Would love to know what went on there...Just checked Tewkesbury to Warwick is a distance of 30 miles...quite a distance for a heavily pregnant (15th century) woman to be a away from home. Im inclined to think that it was through choice..but why? Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?
> >
> > Hi Eileen,
> > Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > something else got her."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > them myself!
> > > > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Marie...once again good points.....I just wish we knew.....

Re Cecily travelling at 6 months gone....she really was indomitable...and as a mother-in-law..what a hard act to follow. You couldnt possible have cried off travelling with Cis as an example...."Well mother managed it...." :0)

Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen,
>
> I agree that travelling - even by car - in late pregnancy is not comfortable. But women do seem to have travelled surprising late in the pregnancies back then. Cecily Neville was 6 months gone with George when they travelled all the way to Ireland.
> Of course, the Clarences had other residences - Margaret had been born at Farleigh Hungerford castle, for instance, 70 miles the other side of Tewkesbury, so Isabel could have been returning to Warwick from there. Or she may have gone to Tewkesbury to pray at the family shrine for a safe delivery (according to the VCH the Abbey also had a number of holy relics; it doesn't say what they were, but perhaps at least one of these was associated with safety in childbirth). There was another Warwick residence only 8 miles from Tewkesbury, and that was Hanley Castle.
> If Isabel was planning to return to Warwick rather than Hanley, I think the Avon was navigable as far as Worcester, so she could have made part of the journey by boat.
> Oh, if only these people had kept diaries!
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In richardiii
>
>
> [email protected], "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie...yes..thanks..Im thinking on lines of if Isobel was was near to the approximate birth date she would have been ensconced at Warwick in her prepared chamber safe and snug. Would love to know what went on there...Just checked Tewkesbury to Warwick is a distance of 30 miles...quite a distance for a heavily pregnant (15th century) woman to be a away from home. Im inclined to think that it was through choice..but why? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?
> > >
> > > Hi Eileen,
> > > Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > something else got her."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > them myself!
> > > > > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie, could Isabel have been travelling to Warwick from Farleigh Hungerford or have been at Hanley Castle when her labour started and maybe Tewkesbury Infirmary was the nearest place that would be suitable?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen,
>
> I agree that travelling - even by car - in late pregnancy is not comfortable. But women do seem to have travelled surprising late in the pregnancies back then. Cecily Neville was 6 months gone with George when they travelled all the way to Ireland.
> Of course, the Clarences had other residences - Margaret had been born at Farleigh Hungerford castle, for instance, 70 miles the other side of Tewkesbury, so Isabel could have been returning to Warwick from there. Or she may have gone to Tewkesbury to pray at the family shrine for a safe delivery (according to the VCH the Abbey also had a number of holy relics; it doesn't say what they were, but perhaps at least one of these was associated with safety in childbirth). There was another Warwick residence only 8 miles from Tewkesbury, and that was Hanley Castle.
> If Isabel was planning to return to Warwick rather than Hanley, I think the Avon was navigable as far as Worcester, so she could have made part of the journey by boat.
> Oh, if only these people had kept diaries!
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In richardiii
>
>
> [email protected], "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie...yes..thanks..Im thinking on lines of if Isobel was was near to the approximate birth date she would have been ensconced at Warwick in her prepared chamber safe and snug. Would love to know what went on there...Just checked Tewkesbury to Warwick is a distance of 30 miles...quite a distance for a heavily pregnant (15th century) woman to be a away from home. Im inclined to think that it was through choice..but why? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought something like this could have happened as I knew about ladies retiring to their chambers for the birth...Maybe they had the dates wrong because would a very premature baby have survived then?
> > >
> > > Hi Eileen,
> > > Depends what you mean by "very premature". Five or six weeks early certainly, and possibly more depending on the case - babies mature in utero at different rates. I've certainly seen babies four weeks early who weighed 7 or 8 lb and were perfectly healthy. As long as the baby was able to suck, that was the main thing. Too prem and it might survive but have problems, like cerebral palsy.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > but there is not a word about her "taking her chamber" in the Abbey, which a woman would do about a month before she was due.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also, if Isabel had a pre-existing illness and then developed puerperal fever four days after the birth, she would surely have been carried off more quickly than otherwise, not more slowly.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or was she there because she was already ill?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > > > > > > <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > > > "It's probable, therefore, that the sort of infections medieval midwives
> > > > > > > > brought with them tended to be milder. The Heralds' Memoir tells us that
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth of York had an "ague" (ie fever) after giving birth to Prince
> > > > > > > > Arthur, but she recovered on that occasion.
> > > > > > > > Like you, I suspect that Isabel got puerperal fever but was recovering
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > something else got her."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the nice compliment! I'm not certain if it's "insights" I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > as much as it's me trying to keep things simple enough so I can
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > them myself!
> > > > > > > > So if, as seems most likely, Isobal *was* recovering, but died because
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > was still too weak to fight off whatever killed her, do you think the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > disease could have been responsible for her child's death? Couldn't
> > > > > > > > something such as a particularly bad bout of 'flu, which is quite
> > > > > > > > infectious, account for both deaths? Especially so close together.
> > > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think so. Through the breastmilk, the baby would have had antibodies to
> > > > > > > whatever the wetnurse had developed resistance to, but young babies are not
> > > > > > > as magically immune to infectious illnesses as some books tend to suggest,
> > > > > > > and things like flu mutate so rapidly we're none of us immune. Also,
> > > > > > > Richard may have been premature and so not strong to start with - Isabel
> > > > > > > probably didn't mean to give birth in the infirmary of a monastery, after
> > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>