Edward IV's Paternity

Can we be sure that if Edward IV had been a fragile premature baby it
would have been recorded?

At the time of his birth Arthur Tudor was the first child of a new
king who was the first of his line and had a shaky claim to the
throne. Contemporaries would take a great interest in him. He was
also born in England.

Edward was a decidedly less important individual at birth - indeed,
he may have had an elder brother living and so not been the heir
until later. He was also born abroad. It's a pity the log of Rouen
Cathedral doesn't record special prayers for the Duke of York's
infant son, but the fact that nobody has anything to say doesn't
prove that he was a robust full-term infant.

I had a long talk with my mother yesterday. Apparently my brother, at
5 1/2lb on what is now considered the borderline of prematurity and
certainly some 3 weeks' early on the basis of the dates, was a
voracious feeder and picked up very rapidly. Could Edward not have
been similar - small but tough?

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Can we be sure that if Edward IV had been a fragile premature baby
it
> would have been recorded?
>
> At the time of his birth Arthur Tudor was the first child of a new
> king who was the first of his line and had a shaky claim to the
> throne. Contemporaries would take a great interest in him. He was
> also born in England.
>
> Edward was a decidedly less important individual at birth -
indeed,
> he may have had an elder brother living and so not been the heir
> until later. He was also born abroad. It's a pity the log of Rouen
> Cathedral doesn't record special prayers for the Duke of York's
> infant son, but the fact that nobody has anything to say doesn't
> prove that he was a robust full-term infant.
>
> I had a long talk with my mother yesterday. Apparently my brother,
at
> 5 1/2lb on what is now considered the borderline of prematurity
and
> certainly some 3 weeks' early on the basis of the dates, was a
> voracious feeder and picked up very rapidly. Could Edward not have
> been similar - small but tough?
>
> Ann

Is it not also possible that he was overdue? He could have been up
to 2 weeks late I think, or does the dating make it a minimum of 3
weeks it would have had to be? I seem to recall that babies can go
over term -or believed term - up to 2 weeks. As for premature birth,
3-4 weeks premature wouldn't necessarily suggest the baby would have
to be weedy or small. I was but then I was 10 weeks prem and that's
a different kettle of fish. What really is interesting is that they
have an actual name for this father. Has anyone bothered to trace
him in pay records or brothers-in-arms documents or any other sort
of document? Do we have proof that he existed? Cecily, in later
life, was deeply religious. To some that might suggest she couldn't
be the sort to have an affair and bastard, but I would suggest it
might serve to confirm it. I could - but am not going to - give you
examples of such behaviour, which may or may not stem from guilt. Re
him having an elder brother alive, are there any records of such?
One last thought, I always read that George and Edward were very
similar physically and Richard was the odd one out. The Plantagenet
kings were often tall and golden/tawny haired so Edward wouldn't
have been unusual for the family, especially if George were similar.
I have not heard any suggestion that George was also ilegitimate, in
which case how can such similarity be explained? Unless anyone has a
different description of George that is not similar to Edward?
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Can we be sure that if Edward IV had been a fragile premature
baby
> it
> > would have been recorded?
> >
> > At the time of his birth Arthur Tudor was the first child of a
new
> > king who was the first of his line and had a shaky claim to the
> > throne. Contemporaries would take a great interest in him. He was
> > also born in England.
> >
> > Edward was a decidedly less important individual at birth -
> indeed,
> > he may have had an elder brother living and so not been the heir
> > until later. He was also born abroad. It's a pity the log of
Rouen
> > Cathedral doesn't record special prayers for the Duke of York's
> > infant son, but the fact that nobody has anything to say doesn't
> > prove that he was a robust full-term infant.
> >
> > I had a long talk with my mother yesterday. Apparently my
brother,
> at
> > 5 1/2lb on what is now considered the borderline of prematurity
> and
> > certainly some 3 weeks' early on the basis of the dates, was a
> > voracious feeder and picked up very rapidly. Could Edward not
have
> > been similar - small but tough?
> >
> > Ann
>
> Is it not also possible that he was overdue? He could have been up
> to 2 weeks late I think, or does the dating make it a minimum of 3
> weeks it would have had to be? I seem to recall that babies can go
> over term -or believed term - up to 2 weeks.

They can go a very long way past that in rare instances - or could
when they were let. But after two weeks is not very common, and the
risks increase after that quite quickly.
The prog said York left on 15th July, which would give due date of
8th April, I think. So that would have made him three weeks over.
Again, possible but out on a line.


As for premature birth,
> 3-4 weeks premature wouldn't necessarily suggest the baby would
have
> to be weedy or small.

Well, 3 weeks isn't premature. And we're talking about exact dates
from conception here, not assumed ones based on last period, which
are often misleading. But he certainly wouldn't have been a hunk.
It's just a case of probabilities.

I was but then I was 10 weeks prem and that's
> a different kettle of fish. What really is interesting is that they
> have an actual name for this father. Has anyone bothered to trace
> him in pay records or brothers-in-arms documents or any other sort
> of document? Do we have proof that he existed? Cecily, in later
> life, was deeply religious. To some that might suggest she couldn't
> be the sort to have an affair and bastard, but I would suggest it
> might serve to confirm it. I could - but am not going to - give you
> examples of such behaviour, which may or may not stem from guilt.

I've seen lists of York's annuitants and names of some of his
officers in France, but no Blayburns, but then no one as lowly as an
archer (nor is it likely Blayburn would have been awarded an
annuity). However, the surname does exist, and seems to have been
commoner earlier than it is now (though still rare). THe IGI shows
the name scattered in pockets down the east side of England in the
16th century. For the 15th century I don't know, but I agree that
this really should be investigated.

Re
> him having an elder brother alive, are there any records of such?

No, as I've said, we have no death date for Henry. He had died by
1445 but that is all that can be said.

> One last thought, I always read that George and Edward were very
> similar physically and Richard was the odd one out. The Plantagenet
> kings were often tall and golden/tawny haired so Edward wouldn't
> have been unusual for the family, especially if George were
similar.

> I have not heard any suggestion that George was also ilegitimate,
in
> which case how can such similarity be explained? Unless anyone has
a
> different description of George that is not similar to Edward?
> Brunhild

Well, I think this is another assumption based on no evidence that
has become "fact" by constant repetition. My feeling is that it was
based on the idea popularised by the Tudors that Richard was the odd
one out, the cuckoo (or indeed viper) in the nest. So far as I'm
aware there is NO contemporary description of Clarence at all (anyone
know of one?). There are bones thought to belong to himself and
Isabel in Tewkesbury Abbey which are from a man and woman both 5ft 5
in tall. Margaret of Burgundy was also apparently on the short side.
It suggests to me that Clarence's appearance, unlike Edward's, was
unremarkable.
Marie

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:

What really is interesting is that they
> have an actual name for this father. Has anyone bothered to trace
> him in pay records or brothers-in-arms documents or any other sort
> of document? Do we have proof that he existed?

We do? What was it? It would be interesting, indeed, to try to
trace him. Does his name come up anywhere else, such as in Cecily's
will, for prayers for his soul, etc?

(Parenthetically, I have always found it interesting that Thomas
More's father left funds in his will for prayers for the soul of
Edward IV, but not Henry VII, under whom he had flourished.)

Katy

- So far as I'm
> aware there is NO contemporary description of Clarence at all
(anyone
> know of one?). There are bones thought to belong to himself and
> Isabel in Tewkesbury Abbey which are from a man and woman both 5ft
5
> in tall. Margaret of Burgundy was also apparently on the short side.
> It suggests to me that Clarence's appearance, unlike Edward's, was
> unremarkable.

There is a portrait of Clarence extant, and I have seen a
reproduction in Tewkesbury Abbey. As usual I am away from books, but
from memory (?Michael Hicks's book on Clarence) it is supposed to
date from about 1490 and be said by people who had known Clarence to
be a good likeness. It is head and shoulders so gives no indication
of height, but he is very definitely fair-haired (I can't remember
the colour of the eyes). Not markedly like the usual portrait of
Edward, but definitely unlike any of the portraits of Richard.

I think we have to be cautious about the Tewkesbury bones, because
there is evidence of a good deal of moving of remains in Tewkesbury
crypt, not least because of flooding. Nothing to say they aren't
Clarence, but no certainty that they actually are.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> - So far as I'm
> > aware there is NO contemporary description of Clarence at all
> (anyone
> > know of one?). There are bones thought to belong to himself and
> > Isabel in Tewkesbury Abbey which are from a man and woman both
5ft
> 5
> > in tall. Margaret of Burgundy was also apparently on the short
side.
> > It suggests to me that Clarence's appearance, unlike Edward's,
was
> > unremarkable.
>
> There is a portrait of Clarence extant, and I have seen a
> reproduction in Tewkesbury Abbey. As usual I am away from books,
but
> from memory (?Michael Hicks's book on Clarence) it is supposed to
> date from about 1490 and be said by people who had known Clarence
to
> be a good likeness. It is head and shoulders so gives no indication
> of height, but he is very definitely fair-haired (I can't remember
> the colour of the eyes). Not markedly like the usual portrait of
> Edward, but definitely unlike any of the portraits of Richard.

Ann, sorry, its ca. 1595, and the caption says it is POSSIBLY based
on a lost original. I personally doubt it as it is 3/4 length, not
the typical head & squashed arms you get in 15th century portraits.
In fact, the pose is remarkably reminiscent of the sort you'd get in
15th century rolls of arms, which would be only line drawings and no
attempt made at a likeness. So I suspect it may have been cobbled up
from something like that. These portraits of 15th century historical
figures were very popular at the time and were painted en masse; this
one was apparently one of a set and shows Clarence in his role of
Constable of Queenborough. I've not seen a colour reproduction, but
for what it's worth the black & white in Hicks' book doesn't look
fair-haired to me. The line drawing from Rous, reproduced on the
cover, of course gives a fair-haired appearance, but all line
drawings do.
Anyhow, the portrait looks nothing like Edward IV or Richard III.

>
> I think we have to be cautious about the Tewkesbury bones, because
> there is evidence of a good deal of moving of remains in Tewkesbury
> crypt, not least because of flooding. Nothing to say they aren't
> Clarence, but no certainty that they actually are.

No, I know that. But they are perhaps better evidence than that late
Elizabethan portrait. After all, the bones in a corner in the crypt
in Bruges sort of rumoured to be those of Mary of Burgundy did seem
to prove to be hers on investigation (the damage to pelvis consistent
with the riding accident that killed her, and skull matches face on
her tomb effigy, which was probably produced from death mask). It
should at least be possible to determine the rough age of the owners
if nothing else.

Marie

Two points on this siubject...

If Cecily Neville did say Edward IV was a bastard, I would take her
word for it. It's not sort of thing a mother would burst out with,
regardless of the provocation, unless it was true. The thing is, did
she actually say it? I believe we have only the one account that
alleges she did. But again, I would be inclined to believe that she
said it, because it's not a thing anyone would be likely to make
up...instead the allegation would have been more on the order
of "everyone knows..." or "an old family retainer says..." or "...her
ladies counted on their fingers and...." Cecily was, after all,
alive to deny that she ever said any such thing, if the story got
back to her, and it certainly would eventually.

Secondly, this archer Blayburn or whatever spelling...that I have
reservations about. Not that she may have been unfaithful to the
Duke, not even that it might have been someone named Blayburn, but
the business of his being an archer. Archers were foot soldiers,
skilled and valued ones, but still foot soldiers. I'm tring to think
of a scenario in which an archer and the Duchess of York might have
even crossed paths, let alone have plunged into a sexual liaison.
It's not like she might have noticed a handsome virile archer on the
battlements and invited him into her chamber for a quickie, a la the
bodice-ripper historical romances, We know Medieval society didn't
allow any such freedom...chances are, she would not have been alone
at any time during the day and quite possibly not at night, either.
Maids commonly slept in thei mistresses' bedchambers. If she had an
assignation with a man other than the Duke, he must have bee someone
with ability to move freely within the intimate household of the
Duchess. I could believe he was another member of the aristocracy, a
knight, a personal bodyguard assigned to her, even a household guard,
retainer, or servant, but for many reasons, starting with all the
ladies around her for companionship and all the servants and ending
with there being little likelihood an archer would have come within
an arrow's shot of the Duchess, I can't believe he was actually an
archer.

I would think that the business of his being an archer is probably
another example of the common "your mother wears combat boots" style
of disparaging someone in the nobility and up by saying that actually
they are from a lowly commoner family...viz Lambert Simnel's father
being said to actually be a baker/miller/organ-maker and saying
Perkin Warbeck's sprang from a notoriously rough and shady famly.

So...who do you think Blayburn really was? Are there any likely
suspects among the group who would have been around Cecily at the
right time, if the Duke wasn't? Any knights or nobles who might have
become attached to the household or, conversely, left it abruptly
about the time of her pregnancy with Edward or his birth? Anyone who
was associated with the Yorks as William Marshall was with Henry II?
(Not that I think Wlliam had anything to do with Eleanore of
Aquitaine's pregnancies, I hasten to say.) Can the unusual name
Blayburn be interpreted as any sort of code or translation of another
name...ie, referring to a John Campbell as Ian Fairfield? A burn, in
Scotand, is a valley or some such geographical feature. Wht would a
blay be?

Katy

>
> Secondly, this archer Blayburn or whatever spelling...that I have
> reservations about. Not that she may have been unfaithful to the
> Duke, not even that it might have been someone named Blayburn, but
> the business of his being an archer. Archers were foot soldiers,
> skilled and valued ones, but still foot soldiers. I'm tring to
think
> of a scenario in which an archer and the Duchess of York might have
> even crossed paths, let alone have plunged into a sexual liaison.
> It's not like she might have noticed a handsome virile archer on
the
> battlements and invited him into her chamber for a quickie, a la
the
> bodice-ripper historical romances, We know Medieval society didn't
> allow any such freedom...chances are, she would not have been alone
> at any time during the day and quite possibly not at night,
either.
> Maids commonly slept in thei mistresses' bedchambers. If she had
an
> assignation with a man other than the Duke, he must have bee
someone
> with ability to move freely within the intimate household of the
> Duchess. I could believe he was another member of the aristocracy,
a
> knight, a personal bodyguard assigned to her, even a household
guard,
> retainer, or servant, but for many reasons, starting with all the
> ladies around her for companionship and all the servants and ending
> with there being little likelihood an archer would have come within
> an arrow's shot of the Duchess, I can't believe he was actually an
> archer.

This was a point which occurred to me. What we know of the Nevilles
suggests that they were a pretty snobbish crew (think of their
disdain for the Woodvilles, which the Duchess seems to have shared).
In a purely practical sense, the chances of a Duchess having a fling
with an archer were fairly low. The mere fact that the paramour was
said to be an archer seems to reduce the tale to one of those vague
peices of tittle-tattle which seem often to be flung about. But I
can't help thinking that the chances of anybody having a fling with
anybody at a relatively early stage in her marriage - i.e. before the
heir and spare were safely growing - is also low.

As to an alternative paramour, I would imagine that the bulk of the
troops the Duke had available in Normandy would have accompanied him
to Pontoise, leaving a modest garrison only. This doesn't help to
give credence to the story - the finest, hunkiest soldiers of all
ranks had gone to Pontoise, leaving only the old, the young boys and
the cripples. I exaggerate a little, but you get the idea.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Secondly, this archer Blayburn or whatever spelling...that I have
> > reservations about. Not that she may have been unfaithful to the
> > Duke, not even that it might have been someone named Blayburn,
but
> > the business of his being an archer. Archers were foot soldiers,
> > skilled and valued ones, but still foot soldiers. I'm tring to
> think
> > of a scenario in which an archer and the Duchess of York might
have
> > even crossed paths, let alone have plunged into a sexual
liaison.
> > It's not like she might have noticed a handsome virile archer on
> the
> > battlements and invited him into her chamber for a quickie, a la
> the
> > bodice-ripper historical romances, We know Medieval society
didn't
> > allow any such freedom...chances are, she would not have been
alone
> > at any time during the day and quite possibly not at night,
> either.
> > Maids commonly slept in thei mistresses' bedchambers. If she had
> an
> > assignation with a man other than the Duke, he must have bee
> someone
> > with ability to move freely within the intimate household of the
> > Duchess. I could believe he was another member of the
aristocracy,
> a
> > knight, a personal bodyguard assigned to her, even a household
> guard,
> > retainer, or servant, but for many reasons, starting with all the
> > ladies around her for companionship and all the servants and
ending
> > with there being little likelihood an archer would have come
within
> > an arrow's shot of the Duchess, I can't believe he was actually
an
> > archer.
>
> This was a point which occurred to me. What we know of the Nevilles
> suggests that they were a pretty snobbish crew (think of their
> disdain for the Woodvilles, which the Duchess seems to have
shared).
> In a purely practical sense, the chances of a Duchess having a
fling
> with an archer were fairly low. The mere fact that the paramour was
> said to be an archer seems to reduce the tale to one of those vague
> peices of tittle-tattle which seem often to be flung about. But I
> can't help thinking that the chances of anybody having a fling with
> anybody at a relatively early stage in her marriage - i.e. before
the
> heir and spare were safely growing - is also low.
>
> As to an alternative paramour, I would imagine that the bulk of the
> troops the Duke had available in Normandy would have accompanied
him
> to Pontoise, leaving a modest garrison only. This doesn't help to
> give credence to the story - the finest, hunkiest soldiers of all
> ranks had gone to Pontoise, leaving only the old, the young boys
and
> the cripples. I exaggerate a little, but you get the idea.
>
> Ann

I agree that the likeliest candidate would be a member of Cecily's
personal household, a la Queen Katherine and Owen Tudor. I agree that
the English noblemen serving in Normandy would probably all have gone
to Pontoise, but I would not suppose and that all the hunky males
would have gone with them. A strong garrison, including military
captians, would have been kept to defend Rouen.
It is true that people of that class were not often alone, but Cecily
was in a position to dismiss servants from her presence, unlike a
young unmarried girl. To say that she could not have found privacy
for a liaison is to say that the Tudors could not have existed.

It is the very unusualness of the name Blaybourne that interests me.
Had Burgundy made a name up he would either have gone for some common
English surname that he knew (perhaps Smith), or simply invented
something vaguely English-sounding. The name he came out with, on the
contrary, was highly unusual but did exist. 16th century parish
registers show pockets of Blaybournes and Blayburns scattered down
the east side of England. Clearly some research is needed here.

To go back to the business of Clarence's height, I have just come
across Peter Hammond's short article on the Tewkesbury Bones in
Ricardian no 54. Apparently the bones in question were found actually
in the Clarence vault, when this was opened in 1709. So were it not
for the fact they suggest Clarence was only 5' 5", the identity would
probably never have been questioned.
Incidentally, Hicks also makes the point that when Richard and George
ere in Burgundy as children, people tended to assume Richard was the
elder.

On the subject of the mottoes, Peter Hammond also wrote on these in
no 89. Apparently there are two examples of "tant le desiree". One is
in a manuscript which also includes Warwick's heraldry, so is before
1471. The other is in his copy of Ipomdeon, a knightly adventure
romance which it is suggested he may have acquired in his teens.
Apparently all the examples of Loyaulte me lie are datable to 1483-5.

Marie

> I agree that the likeliest candidate would be a member of Cecily's
> personal household, a la Queen Katherine and Owen Tudor. I agree
that
> the English noblemen serving in Normandy would probably all have
gone
> to Pontoise, but I would not suppose and that all the hunky males
> would have gone with them. A strong garrison, including military
> captians, would have been kept to defend Rouen.

It rather depends on what the Duke's resources were, and how much
need there was to defend Rouen. Speaking in general terms and from a
reasonable background in military history, it was far from uncommon
for only a skeleton garrison to be left at home.


> It is true that people of that class were not often alone, but
Cecily
> was in a position to dismiss servants from her presence, unlike a
> young unmarried girl. To say that she could not have found privacy
> for a liaison is to say that the Tudors could not have existed.

No suggestion that it was impossible, but that practical ifficulties
must be borne in mind. And isn't it possible that the position of a
widow whose son had already safely inherited was a bit different from
that of a wife who had not yet completely her heir-producing duties?

> It is the very unusualness of the name Blaybourne that interests
me.
> Had Burgundy made a name up he would either have gone for some
common
> English surname that he knew (perhaps Smith), or simply invented
> something vaguely English-sounding. The name he came out with, on
the
> contrary, was highly unusual but did exist. 16th century parish
> registers show pockets of Blaybournes and Blayburns scattered down
> the east side of England. Clearly some research is needed here.
>
Good point. It's always possible that the name Blaybourne was well-
known then for reasons which are lost to us now (think of 'a certain
cleric named AElfric' in the margins of the Bayeux Tapestry, or the
laughs to which anybody who happens to be called Michael Jackson is
likely to be subject at the moment).

> To go back to the business of Clarence's height, I have just come
> across Peter Hammond's short article on the Tewkesbury Bones in
> Ricardian no 54. Apparently the bones in question were found
actually
> in the Clarence vault, when this was opened in 1709. So were it not
> for the fact they suggest Clarence was only 5' 5", the identity
would
> probably never have been questioned.
> Incidentally, Hicks also makes the point that when Richard and
George
> ere in Burgundy as children, people tended to assume Richard was
the
> elder.

Interesting. What's his evidence? Thinking aloud here, if they were
both about the same height, and Clarence was fair-haired and rather
girlish-looking, as fair-haired boys can be, and Richard dark-haired
with more definitely male features, he might well have appeared
older. Look at photographs of the Duke of Windsor and George VI (18
months apart) as boys.

> On the subject of the mottoes, Peter Hammond also wrote on these in
> no 89. Apparently there are two examples of "tant le desiree". One
is
> in a manuscript which also includes Warwick's heraldry, so is
before
> 1471. The other is in his copy of Ipomdeon, a knightly adventure
> romance which it is suggested he may have acquired in his teens.
> Apparently all the examples of Loyaulte me lie are datable to 1483-
5.

This seems consistent with the point I suggested, that Richard's
views on loyalty were shaped by events from 1469 onwards.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > I agree that the likeliest candidate would be a member of
Cecily's
> > personal household, a la Queen Katherine and Owen Tudor. I agree
> that
> > the English noblemen serving in Normandy would probably all have
> gone
> > to Pontoise, but I would not suppose and that all the hunky males
> > would have gone with them. A strong garrison, including military
> > captians, would have been kept to defend Rouen.
>
> It rather depends on what the Duke's resources were, and how much
> need there was to defend Rouen. Speaking in general terms and from
a
> reasonable background in military history, it was far from uncommon
> for only a skeleton garrison to be left at home.

I would have thought there was quite a need. If things had gone wrong
at Pontoise, for instance. This was all disputed territory, and the
French were now on the advance. It didn't take long at all once the
Beauforts had ousted York from France for their own rather more laid-
back attitude to result in the fall of Rouen and the loss of Normandy.

>
>
> > It is true that people of that class were not often alone, but
> Cecily
> > was in a position to dismiss servants from her presence, unlike a
> > young unmarried girl. To say that she could not have found
privacy
> > for a liaison is to say that the Tudors could not have existed.
>
> No suggestion that it was impossible, but that practical
ifficulties
> must be borne in mind. And isn't it possible that the position of a
> widow whose son had already safely inherited was a bit different
from
> that of a wife who had not yet completely her heir-producing duties?

Wives were generally left to run the household in those days when the
lord was away, not like the idle Victorian lady. So in practical
terms I don't see that her position would have been any different
from that of a widow, except that she would have had to worry more
about what the servants might see.
By the by, did you know that it was a standard clause in
apprenticeship indentures of the time that the apprentice promised
not to have sex with the master's wife? It seems it was a not
irregular occurrence, and there are quite a few documented cases.

>
> > It is the very unusualness of the name Blaybourne that interests
> me.
> > Had Burgundy made a name up he would either have gone for some
> common
> > English surname that he knew (perhaps Smith), or simply invented
> > something vaguely English-sounding. The name he came out with, on
> the
> > contrary, was highly unusual but did exist. 16th century parish
> > registers show pockets of Blaybournes and Blayburns scattered
down
> > the east side of England. Clearly some research is needed here.
> >
> Good point. It's always possible that the name Blaybourne was well-
> known then for reasons which are lost to us now (think of 'a
certain
> cleric named AElfric' in the margins of the Bayeux Tapestry, or the
> laughs to which anybody who happens to be called Michael Jackson is
> likely to be subject at the moment).

The only possibility that has occurred to me, given that it is an
east-coast name (I don't mean literally on the coast of course), is
that there may have been an English merchant of that name who had
business in the Low Countries, and that the Duke may have come across
the name that way. As I say, I really think some research is
required. Can we get some evidence of distribution in the 15th
century? If so, might any of the parishes involved have belonged to
York?

>
> > To go back to the business of Clarence's height, I have just come
> > across Peter Hammond's short article on the Tewkesbury Bones in
> > Ricardian no 54. Apparently the bones in question were found
> actually
> > in the Clarence vault, when this was opened in 1709. So were it
not
> > for the fact they suggest Clarence was only 5' 5", the identity
> would
> > probably never have been questioned.
> > Incidentally, Hicks also makes the point that when Richard and
> George
> > ere in Burgundy as children, people tended to assume Richard was
> the
> > elder.
>
> Interesting. What's his evidence? Thinking aloud here, if they were
> both about the same height, and Clarence was fair-haired and rather
> girlish-looking, as fair-haired boys can be, and Richard dark-
haired
> with more definitely male features, he might well have appeared
> older. Look at photographs of the Duke of Windsor and George VI (18
> months apart) as boys.

Okay, I've looked Hicks up. He doesn't actually say people thought
George was younger (sorry, failing memory), but that people
underestimated the difference in their ages. They also apparently
tended to assume they were both younger than they were. He says
several of the writers state their ages, though he only cites Waurin,
who said they were eight & nine years old. Richard of course was
eight, but George was 11. This suggests that if Richard was a bit
small for his age, George was even more so.

>
> > On the subject of the mottoes, Peter Hammond also wrote on these
in
> > no 89. Apparently there are two examples of "tant le desiree".
One
> is
> > in a manuscript which also includes Warwick's heraldry, so is
> before
> > 1471. The other is in his copy of Ipomdeon, a knightly adventure
> > romance which it is suggested he may have acquired in his teens.
> > Apparently all the examples of Loyaulte me lie are datable to
1483-
> 5.
>
> This seems consistent with the point I suggested, that Richard's
> views on loyalty were shaped by events from 1469 onwards.

Well of course 1469 is the first time that Richard had to make a
choice. Nobody was offering him a rebellion against Edward before
that. It does seem likely that Warwick might have tried to persuade
him to make a marriage with Anne without Edward's consent, but even
there Clarence did not marry Isabel until the middle of 1469.
However, there is a gap between then and 1483, apparently, when we
have no indication of what Richard was using as a motto. He could
have made the change at any point during those years.

Marie

> >
> > It rather depends on what the Duke's resources were, and how much
> > need there was to defend Rouen. Speaking in general terms and
from
> a
> > reasonable background in military history, it was far from
uncommon
> > for only a skeleton garrison to be left at home.
>
> I would have thought there was quite a need. If things had gone
wrong
> at Pontoise, for instance. This was all disputed territory, and the
> French were now on the advance. It didn't take long at all once the
> Beauforts had ousted York from France for their own rather more
laid-
> back attitude to result in the fall of Rouen and the loss of
Normandy.
>

Bear in mind that there are plenty of instances from military history
of the lightly-garrisoned HQ being attacked while the main body was
campaigning elsewhere. I can't identify any precisely off the top of
my head, but it's not all that uncommon.
> >
> >
> >
> > No suggestion that it was impossible, but that practical
> difficulties
> > must be borne in mind. And isn't it possible that the position of
a
> > widow whose son had already safely inherited was a bit different
> from
> > that of a wife who had not yet completely her heir-producing
duties?
>
> Wives were generally left to run the household in those days when
the
> lord was away, not like the idle Victorian lady. So in practical
> terms I don't see that her position would have been any different
> from that of a widow, except that she would have had to worry more
> about what the servants might see.> By the by, did you know that it
was a standard clause in > apprenticeship indentures of the time that
the apprentice promised > not to have sex with the master's wife? It
seems it was a not > irregular occurrence, and there are quite a few
documented cases.
>
Okay, but clearly it was something there were strong feelings about.
There is a definite sense that Katharine of Valois's liaison with
Owen Tudor was most unusual and scandalous (and indeed that
Isabella's liaison with Roger Mortimer was scandalous and well
outside the norm).


> The only possibility that has occurred to me, given that it is an
> east-coast name (I don't mean literally on the coast of course), is
> that there may have been an English merchant of that name who had
> business in the Low Countries, and that the Duke may have come
across
> the name that way. As I say, I really think some research is
> required. Can we get some evidence of distribution in the 15th
> century? If so, might any of the parishes involved have belonged to
> York?
>
Definitely worth looking at.


I've looked Hicks up. He doesn't actually say people thought
> George was younger (sorry, failing memory), but that people
> underestimated the difference in their ages. They also apparently
> tended to assume they were both younger than they were. He says
> several of the writers state their ages, though he only cites
Waurin,
> who said they were eight & nine years old. Richard of course was
> eight, but George was 11. This suggests that if Richard was a bit
> small for his age, George was even more so.
>
>
Alternatively, of course, that Richard was normal size or indeed on
the tall side, but Clarence was unusually small for his age. Adult
height does not always tally closely with height in youth. I was tall
for my age until I reached 14 and 5ft 6, when I stopped growing. By
contrast, my brother was noticeably small and skinny (no to say
weedy) until he was about 15, when suddenly he shot up - he ended up
at 5ft 11. Statistically, I suppose, tall kids tend to end up as tall
adults, but not invariably.

>
> > > On the subject of the mottoes, Peter Hammond also wrote on
these
> in
> > > no 89. Apparently there are two examples of "tant le desiree".
> One
> > is
> > > in a manuscript which also includes Warwick's heraldry, so is
> > before
> > > 1471. The other is in his copy of Ipomdeon, a knightly
adventure
> > > romance which it is suggested he may have acquired in his teens.
> > > Apparently all the examples of Loyaulte me lie are datable to
> 1483-
> > 5.
> >
> > This seems consistent with the point I suggested, that Richard's
> > views on loyalty were shaped by events from 1469 onwards.
>
> Well of course 1469 is the first time that Richard had to make a
> choice. Nobody was offering him a rebellion against Edward before
> that. It does seem likely that Warwick might have tried to persuade
> him to make a marriage with Anne without Edward's consent, but even
> there Clarence did not marry Isabel until the middle of 1469.
> However, there is a gap between then and 1483, apparently, when we
> have no indication of what Richard was using as a motto. He could
> have made the change at any point during those years.

True. I'm not suggesting that 'Loyaulté me lie' only appeared in
1483, but that it was not apparently already in use in 1469.

Ann

>
>
> I've looked Hicks up. He doesn't actually say people thought
> > George was younger (sorry, failing memory), but that people
> > underestimated the difference in their ages. They also apparently
> > tended to assume they were both younger than they were. He says
> > several of the writers state their ages, though he only cites
> Waurin,
> > who said they were eight & nine years old. Richard of course was
> > eight, but George was 11. This suggests that if Richard was a bit
> > small for his age, George was even more so.
> >
> >
> Alternatively, of course, that Richard was normal size or indeed on
> the tall side, but Clarence was unusually small for his age.

Hicks does say most writers underestimated the ages of both of them
but Clarence's more than Richard's.

Adult
> height does not always tally closely with height in youth. I was
tall
> for my age until I reached 14 and 5ft 6, when I stopped growing. By
> contrast, my brother was noticeably small and skinny (no to say
> weedy) until he was about 15, when suddenly he shot up - he ended
up
> at 5ft 11. Statistically, I suppose, tall kids tend to end up as
tall
> adults, but not invariably.

Very true. I was a short child who spurted aged 12-14; I too am 5ft
6in. My daughter was also on the small side as a young child, and was
in fact a very short newborn baby, but also starting spurting at
puberty and has now stopped at 5' 7". I've noticed that quite a lot
of tall children stop growing early.
However, we seem to have Clarence's thigh bone, and therefore a good
estimate of his adult height. And of Richard we know that although he
was an inch or two taller than Von Poppelau, the Scottish ambassador
referred to his small frame in his address to Richard in 1484. Kids
grow at about 2 " a year at the age richard and George wre in 1461,
so perhaps George was only a2 or 3 inches taller than Richard at that
time, rather than the 6 " one would expect. Whether that same gap
would have been maintained, it is difficult to say. The best I can
make of the contradictory evidence on Richard's size is that he was
probably of average height but his thin frame made him seem smaller.
So he may well have been about 5' 8". But evidently, we shall almost
certainly never know.

Marie

> >
> > I've looked Hicks up. He doesn't actually say people thought
> > > George was younger (sorry, failing memory), but that people
> > > underestimated the difference in their ages. They also
apparently
> > > tended to assume they were both younger than they were.
> Hicks does say most writers underestimated the ages of both of them
> but Clarence's more than Richard's.
>
> Adult
> > height does not always tally closely with height in youth. I was
> tall
> > for my age until I reached 14 and 5ft 6, when I stopped growing.
By
> > contrast, my brother was noticeably small and skinny (no to say
> > weedy) until he was about 15, when suddenly he shot up - he ended
> up
> > at 5ft 11. Statistically, I suppose, tall kids tend to end up as
> tall
> > adults, but not invariably.
>
> Very true. I was a short child who spurted aged 12-14; I too am 5ft
> 6in. My daughter was also on the small side as a young child, and
was
> in fact a very short newborn baby, but also starting spurting at
> puberty and has now stopped at 5' 7". I've noticed that quite a lot
> of tall children stop growing early.
> However, we seem to have Clarence's thigh bone, and therefore a
good
> estimate of his adult height. And of Richard we know that although
he
> was an inch or two taller than Von Poppelau, the Scottish
ambassador
> referred to his small frame in his address to Richard in 1484. Kids
> grow at about 2 " a year at the age richard and George wre in 1461,
> so perhaps George was only a2 or 3 inches taller than Richard at
that
> time, rather than the 6 " one would expect. Whether that same gap
> would have been maintained, it is difficult to say. The best I can
> make of the contradictory evidence on Richard's size is that he was
> probably of average height but his thin frame made him seem
smaller.
> So he may well have been about 5' 8". But evidently, we shall
almost
> certainly never know.

Indeed. If the necessary DNA testing is permitted, it should be
possible to establish whether the Tewkesbury bones are actually
Clarence's. You would need a comparison with his mother or one of his
siblings for mitochondrial DNA, which is the kind which survives in
old bones, but consent is unlikely to be given for Edward IV, who is
in St George's Chapel, so it will have to be one of the others. I
doubt if Richard's remains are going to be conclusively identified.

Going to related matters, I've been doing some thinking about the
Duchess of York's relations with her various offspring, and trying to
concentrate on large non-nuclear families. The examples I've thought
of do sugges that it is not particularly uncommon for mothers
to 'take against' one of their offspring, or some of them, with a
suggestion that it is the elder who are most vulnerable in this
respect. The obvious case is Edward VII, who was the second child but
the eldest son, and seems from a very early stage to have been a
Severe Disappointment (capital SD is deliberate) to both parents, but
to Queen Victoria in particular, mainly because he was not a second
Albert, and the more attempts were made to make him a second Albert
the more he went in the opposite direction. The other, less extreme,
example is the three eldest children of Queen Victoria's eldest
daughter Victoria; Kaiser Wilhelm II, his sister Charlotte and
brother Heinrich. If you read any book on either the Kaiser or his
mother (and there are quite a few) it becomes abundantly clear that
Victoria regarded Wilhelm as a Severe Disappointment (again, he was
not a second Albert, and he had a withered arm which resisted all
treatment), and the other two not much better, and vastly preferred
her three younger daughters, with whom she was on much better terms.

Why the relevance to the Duchess of York? I think we can argue that
the upbringing of 19th century royalties was rather nearer to the
15th century than today. I don't think Victoria's children or
grandchildren had wet nurses, but they certainly had hands-off
mothers, and, in accordance with Prussian tradition, the Kaiser and
his brother were put under the tutelage of military governors at the
age of seven.

All this is simply to say that strained relations between mother and,
in particular, eldest surviving son, can develop for a variety of
reasons. I'm not even sure that relations were that bad between
Edward and the Duchess - if we exclude the supposition that she was
involved in the 1469 plot, then all we really have is her disapproval
of his marriage.

Ann

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

> On the subject of the mottoes, Peter Hammond also wrote on these in
> no 89. Apparently there are two examples of "tant le desiree". One
is
> in a manuscript which also includes Warwick's heraldry, so is
before
> 1471. The other is in his copy of Ipomdeon, a knightly adventure
> romance which it is suggested he may have acquired in his teens.
> Apparently all the examples of Loyaulte me lie are datable to 1483-
5.
>
> Marie

French is Greek to me...what does "tant le desiree" mean? (In my
stab-at-French, I get something like "I desire my aunt" but I rather
doubt that's it.)

Katy