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

As a Churchill admirer, I would have to say that his shape in later life (thirty to ninety) does not appear consistent with being a small or premature baby. Many such cases are the result of "false starts" to a marriage.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jennifer Delaney
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon


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


Hello,

a) not male.

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

Jenny



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

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

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

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

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> As a Churchill admirer, I would have to say that his shape in later
life (thirty to ninety) does not appear consistent with being a small
or premature baby. Many such cases are the result of "false starts"
to a marriage.

I don't know if this gives enough to go on, but I habve found the
following statistics quoted on the web:

1) A baby is held to be mature if it has reached 37 weeks pregnancy
(ie 35 weeks from conception) and weighs 5 1/2 lb or more. Before 37
the baby would be classed as premature and attempts would be made to
stop labour.

1) 5% of babies are born on the "due day" itself (ie 40 weeks
pregnancy or 38 weeks actual gestation)

2) of those mothers still not delivered at 41 weeks pregnancy, 60%
will have started labour spontaneously within another 3 days, and 90%
within another 7 days.

3) A study comparing women who eat fish with those who eat none found
that those eating fish (ie at least once a week) were only 1.9%
likely to deliver prematurely (ie before 259 days or 37 weeks
pregnancy). There is a much higher incidence of premature delivery
amongst non-fish-eaters. Cecily I need hardly mention would have
eaten fish every Friday, plus every day during Advent and Lent.

It is probably okay to say that if Edward was fathered by York he was
probably under 259 days - POSSIBLY just on the 259 or a day or two
more at the outside. So I dunno, chances of being conceived after
York's return 2-3%. What do you think?

Marie

PS I'm not playing with goalposts shifted to how early a baby can
survive as opposed to thrive with no problems. We assume Edward IV
wasn't a premature weakling, and Jones is quite clear that it would
have been recorded if he was.

The chances of his having been more than 2 weeks overdue also seem to
have been small, though data on this are hard to get apparently
because mothers aren't left to go on indefinitely these days. My
mum's first was 3 weeks over, but then it has to be said she didn't
survive.

On the birth of Prince Arthur there is every likelihood as has been
mentioned that he was premature however it also quite possible that once
Henry VII knew the dispensation was on its way he started co-habiting with
his future bride and that the ceremony they went through on the 18th was
simply a matter of tying up the legal stuff. That matter would be cleared
up if we had a clearer understanding of where Elizabeth of York was living
in January 1486 prior to her marriage. Given that nature of things its
likely that Henry would have been extremely keen to get her pregnant as soon
as possible.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Simons" <easimons@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hastings, Earl of
Loudon


> At 03:03 PM 1/1/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
> >
> >I have in fact done a little looking up. There is indeed a
> >normal 'spread', and anything from about two weeks before the due
> >date to two weeks after is entirely typical and nothing to get
> >excited about. The further away from the due date you get the
> >numbers fall off, but three or four weeks is nothing unusual and not
> >incompatible with a healthy child. By my calculation 20th August
> >1441 to 28th April 1442 is 35 weeks and 6 days. Further, it is my
> >understanding that 'early' or 'late' tends to run in families; my
> >brother and I were both early, to the tune of about three weeks,
> >your family were all late. We don't know about Cecily's Nevill's
> >children other than Edward. It's possible that most if not all of
> >them were on the early side; perhaps he was an extreme case, perhaps
> >not.
>
> Well, for comparison we have Cecily Neville's grand-daughter Elizabeth,
who
> married Henry the VIIth on January 18th, 1486 and gave birth to Arthur
> Tudor on September 20th of that year. By my calculations that's exactly
35
> weeks from the wedding.
>
> Based on Jones type of theorizing, that must be clear proof the Elizabeth
> cuckolded Henry. Or perhaps that the family was prone to shorter than
> average pregnancies.
>
> Has anyone tracked the movements of the husbands of Cecily's sisters,
> daughters, and grand-daughters to see if any of their pregnancies were a
> bit on the short side?
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "Tim Dale"
<tmc_dale@y...> wrote:
> On the birth of Prince Arthur there is every likelihood as has been
> mentioned that he was premature however it also quite possible that
once
> Henry VII knew the dispensation was on its way he started co-
habiting with
> his future bride and that the ceremony they went through on the
18th was
> simply a matter of tying up the legal stuff. That matter would
be cleared
> up if we had a clearer understanding of where Elizabeth of York was
living
> in January 1486 prior to her marriage. Given that nature of things
its
> likely that Henry would have been extremely keen to get her
pregnant as soon
> as possible.


Didn't Parliament petition Henry Tudor to get on with it if he was
going to marry Elizabeth of York? Maybe it known that he was taking
marital privileges with her without marrying her.

Katy

>
>Didn't Parliament petition Henry Tudor to get on with it if he was
>going to marry Elizabeth of York? Maybe it known that he was taking
>marital privileges with her without marrying her.
>
>Katy

Remember, "engagement" as we understand it is a relatively recent custom
originating in America. Betrothed couples were legally married, whether
they had gone through with the second ceremony yet or not. Remember Eleanor
Butler!

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

--Bob Waters

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
>
> >
> >Didn't Parliament petition Henry Tudor to get on with it if he was
> >going to marry Elizabeth of York? Maybe it known that he was
taking
> >marital privileges with her without marrying her.
> >
> >Katy
>
> Remember, "engagement" as we understand it is a relatively recent
custom
> originating in America. Betrothed couples were legally married,
whether
> they had gone through with the second ceremony yet or not. Remember
Eleanor
> Butler!

I've said before I believe this was a childhood marriage as
Westmoreland's will refers to Cecily as Duchess of York. However, I
don't think engagement is necessarily an American invention, but that
in England the change arose from Hardewick's Marriage Act of 1754,
which ended the legal recognition of consummated betrothals and
clandestine marriages.
Tim is right in that the crucial question is when York and Cecily
began sexual relations. After Westmoreland's death in 1425 York
remained the ward of his widow. In 1428 both York and the Countess of
Westmoreland were resident in the King's household (whether Cecily
was there as well, under the Countess's umbrella, I don't know). He
was still in the King's household, on a meagre allowance, in 1429
when the Pope granted himself and Cecily the right to choose a
confessor. So although one writer seems to have taken this document
as evidence that they were by then living together as man and wife,
it may not be the case at all. Cecily was then only 15; her 16th
birthday was on 3rd May 1430. Had the King and Cecily's mother wanted
the marriage consummated at this point York would have found it
difficult to put them off. The question is - did they?
Orphaned noblemen were most frequently granted livery of their
inheritance "without proof of age" - ie WAY before they were 21, but
York actually had to petition the King in parliament and was only 4
months off his 21st birthday when in May 1432 he was finally granted
his independence, and then only with sureties - ie 1,000 marks to the
King and just under £1,000 to the Duke of Gloucester for 5 years. It
would seem the authorities just didn't trust him. Given this, the
Countess could well have been reluctant to let him bed her daughter,
afraid of the possible consequences for her of this marriage.

So was their marriage consummated after May 1432? Or might the
Countess have made York wait out the 5 years as well? That would take
us to May 1437. York was in France then, but returned hom in the
autumn.

I suppose what I am saying is that it is also possible that the
marriage was consummated late because of reluctance from the bride's
side (not necessarily from the bride herself, of course).
I think I really must buy myself a copy of Johnson.


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

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

Marie
>

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:

> BTW...I was tempted to plead for "no More," but instead I'll ask
whether
> the Latin *morus* might be the root of our word "moron."
>
> --Bob Waters
>
I do believe it is.

Katy

At 09:26 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
>--- In , Bob Waters
><uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
>
> > BTW...I was tempted to plead for "no More," but instead I'll ask
>whether
> > the Latin *morus* might be the root of our word "moron."
> >
> > --Bob Waters
> >
>I do believe it is.
>
>Katy

Male offspring of a firearm! :)

--Bob Waters