Archer thread

1. I have been reading the exchanges concerning the possible illegitamcy of Edward IV with interest, yet some puzzlement. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV has anything to do with Richard's taking the throne.
2. As I understand it, the fact that a female's reproductive system begins to function does not mean that the young woman (or girl even, considering the age of marriage on medieval times) is neccessarily capable of carrying a child to term - or even long enough for a prematurily born child to survive. I don't believe I'm mistaken in thinking that multiple miscarriages prior to a full-term birth may have been considered more usual then than now. Should the Duke and Duchess of York have already experienced one or more such occurrances, then the "low key" christening of Edward would have a very good explanation - his (slightly) premature birth caused the parents to worry that he would soon join his siblings.
3. I feel that the point made in a previous post concerning Margaret Beaufort's giving birth to Henry Tudor at the age of thirteen and then not having anymore children - even though her husbands were obviously capable of producing children on their part - points out the hazards of childbirth sufficiently, especially when the mother is very young.
4. Personally, I think the archer story is just that - a story. Edward arrived a bit early and later the mudflinging that too often is associated with politics stepped in (perhaps also helped by the need to counter stories that Henry VI was not the father of Edward of Lancaster?).
5. Although there is no written data to support this, my own feeling about Richard's assumption of the crown is that he got it for two reasons: Edward IV's children had been debarred by their being the result of Edward's second, secret marriage and Clarence's son was debarred by his being a minor and the son of an attainted traitor. The attainder (I understand) could have been taken care of, but the only cure for Warwick's age was time. And England needed a ruler.
6. I think - and this is only my personal reading of what happened after the death of Edward IV - that after the problems with the Woodvilles and Hastings had been dealt with (and there is a lot of information missing about THAT that I would dearly like get my hands on!) the political elite quickly decided that they did not want another go around of rebellion and riot by lords trying to gain control of a minor King and plumped for Richard who, I feel, considered it his duty (and that is not meant sarcastically).
7. Concerning Warwick: does anyone know when the stories that he was "slow" first were noted? I ask because if the person that Henry Tudor claimed to be the Earl was actually a stand-in (Lambert Simnel?), then that might explain many things.
8. I hope noone takes any offence at the above, as I really have enjoyed this thread and thought I would toss some ideas in.

Doug Stamate

Doug wrote: "...I don't see how the possible
illigitimacy of Edward IV has anything to do with
Richard's taking the throne."

***

Thomas More claims that Richard's supporters thought
it had something to do with it.

Thomas More says Doctor Shaa preached a sermon that
was supposed to justify Richard's claim to the throne.
Shaa supposedly said: "... neither King Edward
himself nor the Duke of Clarence were lawfully begot,
nor were the very children of the Duke of York who
were got unlawfully by other persons by the adultery
of the Dutchess their mother." (Richard III, the
great debate, ed. by Paul Murray Kendall, p. 86)

Michael Jones' hypothesis says "the House of York"
replaced Edward IV's sons with Richard to prevent "a
bastard line" from being confirmed on the throne of
England. (Bosworth 1485 - psychology of a battle, p.
85)

If Jones is correct, "the House of York" saw a
connection.

***

Doug wrote: 3. I feel that the point made in a
previous post concerning Margaret Beaufort's
giving birth to Henry Tudor at the age of thirteen and
then not having anymore children - even though her
husbands were obviously capable of producing children
on their part - points out the hazards of childbirth
sufficiently, especially when the mother is very
young.

***

On p. 113 of "Bosworth 1485," Jones writes: "Later in
her life [Margaret Beaufort] would express strong
disapproval of the practice, which was not unusual, of
allowing girls of the age she had been to enter full
marital relationships, with the risk of such early
childbirth. She would ensure that her grand-daughter
Princess Margaret's marriage to James IV of Scotland,
originally envisaged at a similar age to her own, was
delayed for several years to protect the girl."

***

4. ... Edward arrived a bit early and later the
mudflinging that too often is associated with politics
stepped in (perhaps also helped by the need to counter
stories that Henry VI was not the father of Edward of
Lancaster?).

***

That's an interesting thought. Who needed to counter
those stories? Do you mean the stories began with
York's enemies and were revived by the Tudors?

***

6. ... after the problems with the Woodvilles and
Hastings had been dealt with (and there is a lot of
information missing about THAT that I would dearly
like get my hands on!)

***

You probably mean contemporary records. But I'll
suggest this 2 part article in the Ricardian, in case
you haven't seen it:

"William, Lord Hastings, and the Crisis of 1483; an
assessment," Pts. 1 and 2., by Wendy Moorhen. In The
Ricardian, Vol. 9, no. 122 (Sept. 1993) and Vol. 9,
no. 123 (Dec. 1993).

***

7. Concerning Warwick: does anyone know when the
stories that he was "slow" first were noted? I ask
because if the person that Henry Tudor claimed to be
the Earl was actually a stand-in (Lambert Simnel?),
then that might explain many things.

***

I'd like to know, too. Can anyone answer that?

TIA!

Marion









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